Point of Order

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Have you been approached by the Government, or more specifically by the Prime Minister, for them to seek leave to come to the House to explain the complete shambles and uncertainty over the referendum on the European Union constitution? It would appear that, outside the House, the Prime Minister is now giving contradictory indications, but he has not come here to clarify his position or that of the Government. It is surely very unsatisfactory that press conferences should be told by the Prime Minister what he thinks may or may not happen, while we here in the House of Commons are left in the dark. Has the Prime Minister asked whether he can come to the House to clarify the position, or will we be left in a state of complete chaos, confusion and uncertainty?

Sylvia Heal: I can inform hon. Members that, at this moment in time, I have had no request from the Prime Minister or another member of the Government to come to the House.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Protective Headgear for Young Cyclists Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Eric Martlew: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	This is the third time that my name has been drawn in the private Members' ballot since I was elected in 1987. I always put my name into the ballot and always secretly hope that I will not be successful. I know that for the next four, five or six months the Bill will certainly change priorities and dominate my working life. I will become what is known as a private Bill bore, which is not a member of the British Army. I will talk of nothing else and everyone else's eyes will glaze over. That has been my experience with two Bills. Although I have failed to get them on to the statute book, that does not seem to have been an obstacle in achieving their objectives.
	My first Bill aimed to stop calves being exported from the United Kingdom to the cruel veal crates on the continent. Although the Bill failed, within six months BSE ensured that that cruel trade would stop. Fortunately, it has not restarted.
	My second Bill was designed to take Railtrack out of the private sector. The Bill failed, of course, and I can remember the Government speaking against it at the time. However, within four months, they had put Railtrack into liquidation and Network Rail, a not-for-profit organisation, had been formed. Even if this Bill fails today, I am sure that, with my record, the law will be changed in the near future.

Christopher Chope: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Government have already told him that they oppose the Bill and are intent on talking it out?

Eric Martlew: I think that the hon. Gentleman must have defective hearing. I said, "If this Bill fails". I did not say that it would fail, and I am confident that enough of my hon. Friends are here to carry the day unless the Conservatives try some sharp practice.
	When I came seventh in the ballot, I knew that I would be very popular, but I did not expect to be as popular as I was. Within an hour of the ballot, somebody knocked on my door with a Christmas hamper, saying, "If you do my Bill, I will give you the hamper." Unfortunately, I was not bribed that easily. I took a leisurely look at all the Bills. I returned to my constituency office and went through the piles of stuff that we had and I read a letter from the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust asking me whether I would take up its Bill. The letter was signed by the trust's chief executive, Angela Lee, OBE.
	I was immediately interested in the Bill, because it reminded me of a serious road accident that I was involved in as a child; one could say that I had a flashback. When I was about five-years-old, I had an argument with a petrol tanker in which I came off second best. Obviously, I was not responsible as a child, and the accident was my fault. Although I do not remember the accident itself, I remember the separation from my parents and the months in hospital. I remember the loss of schooling and the embarrassing physical scars that I had at the time. Bald patches on the head and scars on the face were very embarrassing for a child. I thought that if I could help to alleviate such or worse cases for children, it would be a very good Bill. That was one of the main factors in my decision.
	I then started to examine what the Government were doing. I came to the conclusion that they had a bit of a blind spot about protecting child cyclists. There is a lack of safety training, and I understand that a private company is launching an initiative today to attempt to replace the cycling proficiency test. I well remember my cycling proficiency test; it was the first examination I passed, and I did not pass too many after that.

Russell Brown: Surely not the only one.

Eric Martlew: It may be a bit cruel, but it is not far from the truth.
	I also realised that there is a lack of legislation on helmets. I thought, "This Government are supposed to be doing a great deal for children." We now have a Minister for Children, who apparently has no involvement in this Bill, and we are talking about having a commissioner for children, but I still think that the Government should do something on this matter.
	The second thing that I noticed about the Bill is that it is simple, well defined, modest, targeted and effective. It would work, which is very important for a private Member's Bill. Thirdly, the Bill is easy for people outside the House to relate to, because the vast majority of them have cycled at one time or another. I am sure that most hon. Members will also have cycled at some stage, so they will understand the Bill's significance. That is why I decided to promote it.
	I want to record my thanks to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have supported my Bill. I have received letters of support from 200 Members.

Eric Forth: Where are they?

Eric Martlew: I suspect that 400 Members have gone to school today because it is national "back to school" day. Some Members pay more attention to their constituents than the right hon. Gentleman does, but that is a matter for him.

Eric Forth: I tend to give priority, as a Member of Parliament, to the making of law, which is what I always thought we were supposed to be here for. If other Members choose to give priority to visiting schools when law is being made—or not, as the case may be—that is a matter for them. I was simply saying that it is all very well for Members to come here on a Friday and claim that 200 Members support their Bill, but I hope that we will see evidence of that when the House comes to vote.

Eric Martlew: There are two schools of thought about the right hon. Gentleman: one is that he is a great parliamentarian and the other is that he is a pain in the neck. I have never changed my opinion about him.

Andrew Dismore: What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I remember Opposition Members protesting only a few weeks ago about the Genetically Modified Organisms Bill not proceeding simply because—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We have business before the House today, and it has nothing to do with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

Eric Martlew: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was not sure what the right hon. Gentleman was talking about.
	I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their support. I am grateful also to many of my ministerial colleagues, including the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the Minister without Portfolio and the Secretary of State for Transport. I understand that the Prime Minister, too, supports my Bill. I also give special thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) for the work that he has done in the Health Committee on this issue, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) for the work that she has done on the Bill behind the scenes.
	I give special thanks, too, to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who will reply to the debate. He has been helpful and courteous throughout our discussions. In 1995, he successfully promoted a private Member's Bill, the Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Bill. Its purpose, like that of my Bill, was to save children's lives.
	I thank the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust, a small registered charity that ensures that child cycle safety is not forgotten, and its patron, the racing driver David Coulthard, who flew straight from the Malaysian grand prix to help me launch my Bill in the House of Commons. Its chief executive, Angela Lee, is the driving force behind the trust. She is a nursing sister at a Reading hospital whose experience of the consequences of child cycling accidents made her realise that something had to be done to change the law. She has worked tirelessly to build a broad coalition of support among parents, the medical and scientific community, the Government, civil servants and Members of Parliament. The cause for which she and the trust fight is very straightforward: to protect kids on their bikes by making them wear a helmet. It must be to the credit of the trust that the Bill is being debated today.

Meg Munn: Is there not a great deal more that can be done to protect children on bicycles, such as having more separated cycle routes, particularly for young people going to school, which we clearly want to encourage? We need to develop proper, safe routes and proper training in cycling proficiency, as my hon. Friend has already outlined. Should we not also be impressing more on motorists their responsibilities to respect the road space of cyclists? I speak as somebody who regularly cycles to and from the House of Commons. All those issues have to be tackled along with that of wearing helmets.

Eric Martlew: I accept that totally. If my hon. Friend intends to speak later, perhaps she will tell us whether she wears a helmet.

Meg Munn: I do.

Eric Martlew: I am pleased to hear that.

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) made a very good point about cycle lanes. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) join me in condemning Conservative-controlled Barnet council, which has decided to start to remove cycle lanes to allow traffic to move more quickly, thus jeopardising the safety of children and others who use bicycles?

Eric Martlew: I have no knowledge of that, but as the council is not Labour-controlled, I will condemn it.
	I return to the serious point that I was making. The death of a child is a tragedy, but a death that could have been avoided is a scandal, and today we are working to prevent such deaths. I hope that Ministers will take note of the debate and support the Bill.
	The Minister for Children, whom I have already mentioned, has published a Green Paper, "Every Child Matters", in which the Government identify a number of outcomes that are important to children, including being healthy, staying safe and getting the most out of life.

David Cairns: My hon. Friend speaks about avoiding children's deaths. Even if children who are involved in cycling accidents do not die, they can sustain serious head injuries that leave them with disabilities for the rest of their lives, and that, too, is a tragedy, so the Bill is also about preventing avoidable long-term damage to children.

Eric Martlew: Yes, for every child who dies, about 10 are severely injured, and many of those suffer brain injuries.

Ian Stewart: Does my hon. Friend accept that when we reach adulthood we can have arguments and express different views about whether we should impose things on people for their own good, but safety is an educative process that is best started when children are young and impressionable, so that they accept good practice throughout the rest of their lives?

Eric Martlew: We have a responsibility in that regard as parliamentarians, parents and citizens of the UK. Some people have accused me of introducing a Bill that expands the nanny state. I suspect that few of my colleagues had a nanny, but we know that the job of nannies is to look after children. Children reach an age at which they can decide things for themselves, and the Bill says that once they reach 16 they do not have to wear a helmet. I am not one of those who say that helmets should be compulsory for every cyclist. This is not the thin end of the wedge; it is what we should be doing for children.
	Before I was so kindly interrupted, I was discussing the Green Paper. It is all very well issuing a Green Paper, but if the Government fail to support the Bill they will send the wrong signals. I argue that cycle helmets are crucial to ensuring healthy, safe and enjoyable lives for hundreds of thousands of young cyclists in this country.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman says, "If the Government support the Bill" but I thought he had already said that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport did so. Is he suggesting that his Government are speaking with forked tongue?

Eric Martlew: I am a little disappointed. Originally, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who I know supports the Bill, was to be the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. It appears that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is interested only in making political points, which I find upsetting.
	The sad truth is that a disproportionate number of accidents involve child cyclists. Figures from the Transport Research Laboratory and the Department for Transport starkly reveal how vulnerable child cyclists are. The TRL points out that although children account for 6.6 per cent. of road cyclists, they account for 21 per cent. of cyclist deaths in a three-year period. Child cyclists are four times more likely than adult cyclists to die on the roads. Once a fortnight, a child dies in a cycling accident on the roads of this country. More than once a day, a child is seriously injured in such an accident and is likely to be disabled. I mentioned that hon. Members were likely to be visiting schools in their constituencies today. I am talking about the equivalent of wiping out a primary class and severely disabling a secondary school every year. I do not claim that cycle helmets will necessarily reduce the number of accidents, but I am absolutely convinced that they will reduce the severity of the injuries sustained.

Mark Lazarowicz: Statistics can be interpreted in various ways, but any death or injury is a tragedy. How many of the deaths of the 28 child cyclists killed on our roads each year could be prevented by the wearing of a helmet?

Eric Martlew: I was just coming to that. Many of the accidents involve serious head injuries, and scientific research performed both here and abroad has proved that cycle helmets protect the head and brain against the worst effects of injury. Dr. Andrew Curran, whom I met in the House of Commons at the launch of my Bill, is a consultant paediatric neurologist at Alder Hey hospital in Liverpool and has for three and a half years been involved in research into the effect of head injuries in children. He believes that the wearing of a cycle helmet reduces brain damage in children by 80 per cent. Perhaps the most comprehensive independent analysis of existing research is the Department for Transport-commissioned "Bicycle Helmets: A review of their effectiveness" published in November 2002. I recommend it as a very good read, although I am sure that all hon. Members read it before coming to this debate. I am grateful to the Department for its lead in marshalling and reviewing the evidence in this crucial area. The report states that
	"there is now a considerable amount of scientific evidence that bicycle helmets have been found to be effective at reducing head, brain and upper facial injury in bicyclists. Such health gains are appropriate for all ages, though particularly for child populations."
	The report states simply that cycle helmets save lives. Supporters of the Bill, which include a wide range of highly respected professional organisations, have clearly reached the same conclusion.

Kevan Jones: There are some who would accuse my hon. Friend of extending the nanny state. Does he agree that the same arguments were used in the 1960s and '70s against the wearing of seat belts, and that the legislation passed in that respect has reduced the number of deaths and the personal tragedy experienced by families whose members would otherwise have died on the roads?

Eric Martlew: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. We have always seen a knee-jerk reaction against such measures, whether on the wearing of seat belts or preventing drink-driving, but, after a while, such things become common sense and we wonder why we did not do them before.

Edward Leigh: The answer to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) is that requiring people to wear car seat belts has not stopped car use, whereas the Bill, if passed, would have a dramatic effect in terms of discouraging children from cycling. When helmet laws were introduced in Australia, the result was large decreases in the number of people cycling: child cycling fell by between 30 and 50 per cent.

Eric Martlew: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the facts, and not at that pamphlet, he will find that cycling has since returned to its former levels. In addition, he will recall that I said that only 6.6 per cent. of cyclists in this country are children.
	I have strong support from various organisations. I have here a letter from Sir Peter Morris, president of the Royal College of Surgeons, who writes:
	"This seemed to me an entirely sensible public health measure and I am pleased to inform you that the . . . Royal College of Surgeons of England yesterday expressed full support for your Bill."
	I also have support from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Faculty of Accident and Emergency Medicine, the Society of British Neurological Surgeons, the Faculty of General Dental Practitioners, the British Dental Association, the Institute of Road Safety Officers, the Child Brain Injury Trust, the brain injury organisation, Headway, the road safety organisation, Brake, this country's leading cycle retailer, Halfords, and, last but not least, and greatly welcome, the Royal College of Nursing, whose letter states:
	"we strongly support the bill and our members have first hand experience of the tragic injuries and loss of young life which could have been prevented by wearing a cycle helmet. Whilst wishing to encourage people to cycle as much as possible we also want to ensure this is done safely".
	One person who has first-hand experience of such tragic injuries is Mr. Alistair Fraser-Moodie, a consultant in accident and emergency medicine at Derbyshire royal infirmary for the past 26 years. He writes:
	"It is quite obvious to me as a practising clinician seeing patients come through the front door of our hospital that once you are on a pedal cycle the chances of survival in a crash are far greater if you wear a helmet. These poor pedal cycle casualties only realise this when the shock has died down and some well-meaning ambulance man gives them their cycle helmet back again. Instead of suffering a fractured skull or worse they have a bruised skull, a bit of concussion and a smashed up helmet. So the helmets have taken the strain.
	It is about time that we start looking after the children in our country. Many use their pedal cycles to get to school. Others use their pedal cycles for paper rounds or pleasure alone. It is about time we protected these children by introducing the compulsory wearing of cycle helmets. Failure to do this will inevitably result in carnage."
	For me, Mr. Fraser-Moodie captures eloquently people's sense of anger and bemusement when, in the face of overwhelming evidence, no action is taken to protect children.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman cites many common-sense propositions, and I certainly advise my children to wear bicycle helmets, but why does he believe that the voluntary route has failed and is failing? Why does he not think that more should be invested in education about the propositions that he articulates?

Eric Martlew: My understanding is that, overall, 25 per cent. of cyclists wear helmets, but in the most vulnerable group—teenage boys—that figure is only 12 per cent., because wearing a helmet is considered "not cool". Peer pressure is such that they will not wear them, and those are the people who are most vulnerable. There are people—

Christopher Chope: rose—

Eric Martlew: I assume that the hon. Gentleman has prepared a speech.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that cyclists in the 12 to 16 age group would think it cool to obey the law.

Eric Martlew: I am not suggesting that at all. I was talking to my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who told me in the Lobby that the Bill was excellent. As a mother, instead of telling her teenage children that they should wear a helmet, she will be able to say, "It's the law and you must wear a helmet." That is the advantage.
	I said earlier that the Bill's aims are relatively modest, but that does not mean that it will not be effective. I said that the Bill was straightforward, but that does not mean that it oversimplifies the problem. While preparing it, I have been conscious of the need to frame legislation that will be practical and proportionate. The Bill makes it an offence to cause or permit a child under the age of 16 to ride a cycle on the road or in a public park or recreation ground unless the child is wearing protective headgear.

Meg Munn: Can my hon. Friend explain his thinking about including off-road cycling? Although I do indeed wear a helmet while cycling to and from the House of Commons, I might take a different view depending where else, off-road, I was cycling. I would take a view of the risks involved in that. Clearly, the impact of a road traffic accident is likely to be much more serious than the effect of falling off a bike in a park. If my hon. Friend could tell us his thinking about that and about including off-road cycling in the Bill, I should be grateful.

Eric Martlew: Two thirds of accidents where children end up in hospital take place off the road. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) will speak later about the son of a constituent of his who died recently not on the road, but riding his bicycle in a skateboard park.

Mark Lazarowicz: The all-embracing nature of the Bill concerns me and has led me from an initial position of general support to a much greater scepticism. Will my hon. Friend comment on the following circumstance? A couple of weeks ago I went with my five-year-old daughter to a neighbouring park. She met one of her friends, who lent her her bicycle to ride around the park. Am I right in believing that I would be committing a criminal offence by allowing her to do that? Is that not taking matters a little too far?

Eric Martlew: I know that my hon. Friend is a sensible person, and I believe that common sense will prevail. If, for example, one let a three-year-old ride a tricycle along the pavement, one would be committing an offence because that would be against the law. In reality, however, no action would be taken, because common sense would come into it. I can give two further examples of laws that are sometimes not enforced. We see few prosecutions of adults or children for riding bicycles on the pavement. Some of my constituents say there are not enough prosecutions for that. As another example, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) told me that he was in Whitehall last night and watched the number of cyclists go by without lights on their bikes. Apparently, they were wearing helmets, but they had no lights on their bikes. If my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) takes the measure to the extreme, yes, he would be prosecuted, but in reality common sense will prevail.
	I have a letter from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who says he has no objections to the Bill. In my discussions with him, he said that he thought that it was the law already. He understood the situation and he thought a long lead-in time might be needed to build up the rate of compliance before the Bill is introduced. There is no objection from the police.

Michael Foster: I take my children to Worcester Woods country park for rides on cycles. That is off-road, and one is not likely to come into contact with four-wheel-drive vehicles, but there are trees, branches and twigs that can easily get stuck in the spokes of a wheel and send the cyclist over the handlebars. That is why I insist that my three children wear helmets when they come on a cycle ride with me in Worcester Woods country park.

Eric Martlew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for helping me out. He clears up the point that was made. I shall press on, as I do not want to be accused of talking out my own Bill.
	The parent, guardian or employer of a child will be held responsible, as will the owner of a cycle if the owner is over the age of 15, or any person other than the cycle's owner who has custody or possession of the cycle immediately before the child rides it, if that person is over 15. The offence is liable to a level 1 fine, currently a maximum of £200. There is scope in the Bill to allow the Secretary of State to exempt certain groups and to prescribe the protective headgear that should be worn. The provisions of the Bill would cover all of the United Kingdom. For the purpose of the Bill, a cycle will mean a bicycle, tricycle or cycle with four or more wheels.
	Hon. Members may think the Bill breaks new ground, but that is not the case. Those who were in the House before 1990 may remember the ten-minute Bill introduced by the then. Member for Ealing, North, Harry Greenway, and we know how difficult it is to get such a Bill on to the statute book. That Bill did almost exactly the same as my Bill would do, but for children riding horses. It is illegal for a child to ride a horse on a road unless the child is wearing a riding hat. That went through the House on a ten-minute Bill, so it must have been unopposed.
	What my Bill will not do, as some of its more excitable opponents claim, is make every child cyclist and every parent of a child cyclist a potential criminal. The provision is an important mechanism to counteract persistent flouting of the law. I envisage that a friendly word of caution or a verbal instruction to provide a helmet for a child will suffice to make people comply with the legislation. The very fact that legislation is in place will encourage most people to ensure that children obey the law. It is one thing to tell teenagers they should wear a helmet, and another to be able to say, "You must wear a helmet because that is the law."
	I know that the Minister is deeply concerned about compliance rates. His Department is increasingly active in targeting young people with the message that safe cycling makes sense. Last year the Department devoted £137,000 to an advertising campaign showing the importance of wearing a helmet. I welcome the efforts of the Department, but the fact that I have introduced the Bill indicates that I do not believe it is doing enough. The Minister wants wearing rates to reach a critical mass before he contemplates making that compulsory. I understand his motivation but ask him to consider whether that goal will ever be reached. Surely matters should be the other way around. Rather than waiting for wearing practices to change, the Government should introduce enforcement. The Minister should act now to put enforcement measures in place to ensure that wearing practices change.
	If the Government do not, they will continue to fall into the trap of the opponents of helmets, such as the Cyclists Touring Club, which not only does everything possible to stop helmet wearing becoming mandatory, but campaigns against the Government advocating the wearing of helmets. That is one reason for concern that the Government will never achieve their compliance rates.
	Helmet wearing rates in the population as a whole have increased from 16 per cent. in 1994 to 25 per cent. in 2002, but the trend among teenage boys has been reversed and is down to 12 per cent. It is all right for hon. Members to talk about freedom, but they know that the children are at risk, and I hope that they will take note of that.
	Teenage boys are the most vulnerable group and it is not good enough to shake one's head and shrug one's shoulders and say that boys will be boys or that kids will be kids. It is precisely because children are children, who take risks on their bike, who make errors of judgment, who do not have experience, and who have to use their bikes for practical journeys, that action needs to be taken to protect them.
	The Minister's policy of persuasion is well intended, but it will never deliver the results that all hon. Members must surely want—a safer cycling environment for all young people. His efforts must be backed by enforcement measures, which will be acceptable to the vast majority of the population once the issue is decided. Otherwise, we will continue in a curious policy vacuum in which the Government fully accept the case for cycle helmets and argue that children are vulnerable without them, but do precious little to rectify that situation. The Government's March 2000 road strategy said that the wearing rate of helmets for the population as a whole was about 18 per cent. It went on to say:
	"At this level, making helmets compulsory would cause enforcement difficulties and without greater public acceptance could have an effect on the levels of cycling. We will monitor wearing rates and review the option of compulsory wearing from time to time."
	Three and a half years later, in an answer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), who I understand supports my Bill, the Minister updated the wearing rates to 25 per cent. but his words sounded eerily familiar. He said:
	"At these levels making helmets compulsory would cause enforcement difficulties and without greater public acceptance could have an effect on levels of cycling . . . We will continue to monitor wearing rates . . . and review the option of compulsory wearing from time to time."—[Official Report, 5 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 639W.]
	The time is now. To be frank, that does not inspire a great deal of confidence that the area of policy has been reviewed at all. In fact, it suggests to me that unthinkingly, and with a little complacency, the Government are doing their best to brush the matter under the carpet.
	The issue will not go away, in part because helmet wearing is not increasing quickly enough, in part because young children continue to die or sustain serious injuries while cycling, and in part because people, including many hon. Members, are genuinely mystified by the Government's lack of activity in an area which, on the surface, they say is so important. We agree how effective helmets are, we agree on the vulnerability of child cyclists, and we agree on the importance of delivering a safer cycling environment. As the Prime Minister said to me on 3l March during Prime Minister's questions:
	"The issue that my hon. Friend raises is a high priority for hon. Members and the Government."—[Official Report, 31 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 1594.]
	Is it not a pity that we cannot yet agree on an effective method for delivering the outcome? I hope that the issue can be explored in more detail today and during later stages of the Bill.
	I want to deal briefly with some of the opponents of the Bill. I do not include those hon. Members in the Chamber. I have been a Member of the House for quite a long time now and I have been involved in various campaigns, one of which was on the Hunting Bill with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). After a while one acquires a grudging respect for one's opponents, despite disagreeing with them, but I cannot say that with regard to this Bill.
	The Association of Cycle Traders seems more interested in selling bicycles than in the safety of children. It argues that helmets will have only a small benefit for cycle safety, which is nonsense. Then we have the National Cycling Strategy. I was ignorant of that quango before I took up the Bill, but I was rather alarmed to see that it had written to hon. Members, although it did not write to me, and its address is the Department for Transport, Marsham street. Moreover, it gave a distorted version of my Bill, so I hope that the Minister will investigate that.
	I received a letter signed by the vice-chairman, which made me wonder who the chairman of the strategy was. I did a bit of digging and discovered that the chairman at the time the letter went out was none other than Mr. Steven Norris, a former Member of the House and the Conservative candidate for the Mayor of London. I wondered why he did not sign the letter opposing my Bill. This Bill is popular; it has 80 per cent. support in the country. Perhaps it was because he did not want to put his name to the letter because he thought that it would affect his vote. He is a clever man and he may also have thought that a letter from him to Labour Members of Parliament would have been counter-productive, and it probably would have been. Then I did some more digging and the vice-chairman is a chap called—

Andrew Dismore: Perhaps another reason for Mr. Norris not signing the letter is that he is rather too busy with his part-time job with Jarvis, where he spends two days a week for an enormous sum of money engaging in matters of greater concern to Londoners.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we can return to subject under discussion.

Eric Martlew: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but I am not sure that that is the truth. To give credit where credit is due, I had a frank and full telephone conversation with Mr. Norris, so he obviously had time to phone me back.
	To return to the point, it was the vice-chairman of the National Cycling Strategy who wrote to hon. Members. He is a senior executive of Raleigh Industries Ltd., and one of the arguments that he put forward against my Bill was that it would reduce cycling, and therefore, I suspect, the number of cycles, so perhaps the vice-chairman should have mentioned his other role in that letter. If hon. Members had written such a letter they would have had to declare some sort of interest.
	Finally, I come to the Cyclists Touring Club. I am sure that most members of the CTC are normal, well-adjusted souls, but—

Shona McIsaac: As a former member of that organisation, I wish to reassure my hon. Friend that I am a normal, well-adjusted soul, and I support the wearing of cycling helmets.

Eric Martlew: My hon. Friend is as well adjusted as the rest of us, I will give her that.
	I am sure that the CTC has well-adjusted members, but it seems to attract its fair share of lunatics in lycra. The organisation campaigns actively to stop the Government promoting the benefits of helmet wearing. All those hon. Members who have received a leaflet from that organisation must realise that not only is it against compulsory wearing of helmets for children or anyone else, but it campaigns actively against the Government saying that wearing helmets is a good idea.

Meg Munn: Does my hon. Friend accept that some people are in favour of cycle helmet wearing, such as my constituent Simon Geller who is active in the local Pedals organisation and is a stalwart of cycling in Sheffield—but he is nevertheless very concerned about the Bill's enforceability? While he wears a helmet and encourages his children to do so as well, he is concerned that this measure would be difficult to enforce and that more needs to be done in terms of persuading people to wear helmets.

Eric Martlew: My hon. Friend could reassure her constituent by telling him that the Home Secretary sees no problem with enforcement. If the Home Secretary is happy with that, perhaps it will satisfy her constituent.
	The CTC is anti-helmet to an extreme extent. I mentioned the £137,000 that the Government spent last year on advertisements in magazines. It is a pity that we did not spend more and put some of the advertisements on television, but the campaign was good. What did the CTC do? It took the Government to the Advertising Standards Authority to complain about the advertisement. That is the sort of people who have been sending leaflets. I accept that the vast majority of members are fine, and I know that a lot of them join because they get cheap insurance, but I suggest to the CTC that if it wants to be taken seriously, it should change its policies and also its leadership.
	Before introducing the Bill, I thought that it was obvious that encouraging children to cycle should go hand in hand with measures to create a safe cycling environment.

Andrew Dismore: I get the impression that my hon. Friend is coming to his conclusion. I have received a lot of representations from a plethora of cycling organisations that are opposed to his proposals, or at best lukewarm or neutral about them. Which cycling organisations, representing the people whom the Bill would affect, have come out in favour of it?

Eric Martlew: I think that the vast majority of cycling organisations are against the Bill, but I remind my hon. Friend that professional cyclists have to wear helmets by compulsion in this country. They accept that, and they are working with a major company—I think that it is a pharmaceutical company—to improve cycle training for children. It will be compulsory for the children to wear helmets during that training.
	I had hoped to finish my speech by now, but I have been generous with interventions. As I said, I thought it obvious that encouraging children to cycle should go hand in hand with measures to create a safe cycling environment. Last June, the Minister said in a press release:
	"by making cycling safer, more people will take to their bikes".
	I am sure that he still holds that view. I thought that it was common sense to say that cycling is a healthy and beneficial activity, but that it should be conducted in a sensible manner. That was before I encountered some of the Bill's opponents, who seem to find a dangerous and alarming contradiction between the promotion of cycling and the introduction of basic provisions to improve the safety of child cyclists. I do not believe that such a contradiction exists, which is why I am promoting the Bill, and I do not believe that anything in the provisions will discourage children from cycling, as some opponents claim.
	Furthermore, I do not believe, as some of the Bill's opponents do, that helmets increase the risk of accidents. I prefer to accept the overwhelming evidence provided by scientific research around the world. Neither do I believe, as some of the Bill's opponents do, that the mandatory wearing of cycle helmets will lead to such a downturn in cycling that we will breed a new generation of obese Britons. If that is the best argument that opponents can come up with, I feel rather sorry for them.
	None the less, however exaggerated and alarmist such claims may be, I accept that there are concerns. That is why, after today's debate, we should take the Bill Upstairs and scrutinise it. The Minister can table amendments and any hon. Member who wishes come to the Committee may do so and make their points. As has been pointed out, what we are witnessing now is the same knee-jerk, unthinking reaction that we saw when we introduced similar measures relating to cars. It was said that measures on drink-driving would never work, and the same was said about wearing seat belts.
	Ultimately, the argument that the provisions will never work, that nobody will agree with them and that there is no way to enforce them is not only defeatist, but plainly wrong. If the Minister needs to be convinced of the measure's popularity, he should study the results of an independent survey carried out by MyVoice, a polling organisation, in April this year. More than 9,000 people were polled, and 80 per cent. of them wanted helmets to be made mandatory for children. Indeed, almost 70 per cent. of the children themselves wanted helmets to be made mandatory.
	Experience in other countries has demonstrated the effectiveness of cycle helmets. The Government accept the effectiveness of helmets, but will do nothing about the issue. Accidents and injuries have declined dramatically in each of the countries where mandatory helmet wearing has been introduced, including Australia, New Zealand, Spain, the Czech Republic, parts of the United States and Canada. Of course, some of those laws have been in place for a long time. If they had been found to be wrong, I am sure that they would have been repealed by now.
	In conclusion—I had not intended to speak for an hour—I hope that the Bill will receive the scrutiny and consideration that it deserves. If it does not become law, that will not be the end of the line. It is my intention to set up with others an all-party group to build up strong support, with the assistance of hon. Members from across the House. This matter is not going to go away. I remind the House of what I said in opening my remarks: my two previous private Members' Bills failed, but they became law soon afterwards. I do not think that we can keep on going forward knowing that we are sacrificing 28 children a year and knowing that some of them could be saved. As I said earlier, the loss of a child's life is a tragedy, but if we can do something to avoid it, such a loss is a scandal.

George Young: I congratulate the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on his good fortune in the ballot, and commend him for his wisdom and courage in choosing this subject. I also commend him on the way in which he introduced the Bill to the House.
	On 19 April, I received a letter from the policy adviser to Sustrans expressing surprise that I was supporting the Bill and going on to say:
	"All cycle world united against it."
	Of course, that is nonsense. The cycle world is rarely united about anything. The cyclist is not a herd animal, but a loner who prefers to go his own way in his own time rather than get on a bus or a train. Most cyclists do not join an organisation, and those who do so have a love-hate relationship with it. I believe that I am an honorary vice-president of the Cyclists Touring Club, but I certainly do not share its view on the Bill.
	As someone who has sought over the past 30 years to work with the many splendid organisations that are active in this field and to help mould them into an effective political force, I think I know what it must be like to be the Chief Whip of the Liberal Democrats. Cyclists are notoriously difficult to organise in a coherent way. Some oppose cycle lanes because they see them as the first step towards banning cyclists from the roads, while others want them. Some believe that the present road traffic laws should be observed and enforced, while others do not. So anyone who comes to this debate expecting to find a united view from the cyclist will be disappointed. I hope that the cyclists among us who end up on different sides of the argument do not let each other's tyres down at the Members' cycle rack.
	I want to begin by putting the Bill in context. Of course, there is a general and legitimate debate about the respective role of the state on the one hand and of the individual and his family on the other. That is a relevant debate when it comes to lifestyle decisions, whether they relate to smoking, drugs or sexual preferences, and also in terms of activities that involve risk. I suspect that nothing that is said this morning will satisfy what I call the fundamental libertarians—those who believe that unless someone is directly doing harm to someone else, they should be free to take risks and injure themselves. Such hon. Members tend to sit on these Benches, and some of them may be here this morning—indeed, I shall give way to one of them.

Edward Leigh: I do not oppose the Bill on fundamentalist libertarian grounds; I oppose it because it will result in a dramatic fall in cycle use.

George Young: That view is perfectly respectable, and I shall come on to it in a moment.
	I do not subscribe to the fundamentalist libertarian view—nor does my party, as I shall show in a moment. I recall a story told to me by a consultant surgeon at the time of one of the earlier debates about seat belts. He was about to operate on a patient in St. George's hospital, which at that time was located at Hyde Park corner. The patient had a rare blood type of which it had taken the hospital some time to acquire sufficient quantities. Just before the patient went under the anaesthetic, there was an accident on Hyde Park corner. A driver who had not been wearing a seat belt was seriously injured and was brought into the hospital critically ill. He had the same rare blood group, so the supplies were given to him and the original operation was cancelled. That shows that, in the interdependent society in which we live, the health of one's neighbour is not a matter of complete indifference to oneself. We all have a mutual interest in living in a healthier society, where demands on the NHS are minimised by justifiable accident prevention measures.

David Cairns: I am enjoying the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Given that the Bill is about children, surely not even the most fundamentalist of the fundamentalist libertarians believes that children should be free to do whatever they want.

George Young: I do not share that view, and if other Conservative Members share it, they must advance it. The question for the House is where this measure falls on the spectrum of legitimate intervention by the state—does it erode the liberty of the individual or is it a legitimate intervention by the state?
	Moving from the general to the specific, road accidents are an obvious target for any Government who have an interest in reducing burdens on the NHS and reducing avoidable deaths and injury. So far as transport accidents are concerned, this House has decided to compel the individual to wear a seat belt, first as a driver and later as a rear seat passenger, to wear a crash helmet as a motor cyclist and, for those under 14, to wear a helmet if they ride a horse. Many of those measures were introduced under a Conservative Government, so Conservative Members have embraced the principle of legitimate state intervention.
	Turning to the specifics of this Bill, the child road cyclist is the most vulnerable of all road traffic users. He is vulnerable both because he is a cyclist and is therefore more exposed, and because he is a child and is less able to cope with traffic and to assess risk—he is at four times greater risk than adults. However, he is the only road user who has no mandatory protection whatsoever.
	I do not plan to spend too much time on medical evidence, because the hon. Member for Carlisle set out the case very well. I agree with Ministers that helmets are effective, and that they significantly reduce the incidence and severity of head injuries—according to the Library, there were 28 such deaths in 2002. As the hon. Member for Carlisle told the House, a Seattle-based study found that helmet use reduced the risk of head injury by 85 per cent., and the Transport Research Laboratory has come up with a slightly lower figure. Those 28 deaths are a legitimate subject for the House to debate. If it is possible to reduce them, let us do so, unless there are overpowering arguments to the contrary.

Shona McIsaac: The right hon. Gentleman mentions the 28 deaths, but he should also mention the people who are seriously injured, who are in permanent vegetative states or who will be disabled for the rest of their lives.

George Young: That point is wholly legitimate. I entirely accept that one should not only focus on the statistics for death.
	As the hon. Member for Carlisle said, the Royal College of Nursing supports the Bill, and although the British Medical Association favours the wearing of helmets, it is neutral on the Bill "at present"—it is possibly aligned with the Government, who are waiting for the voluntary wearing of helmets to increase before they legislate. In fact, nearly everyone agrees that it is sensible to wear a helmet, and the arguments then move on to the downside of compulsion. I want to examine those arguments, because I do not find them convincing.
	The literature that has been sent to us contains some simplistic arguments. Obesity is, of course, an issue, but it has many causes and many cures. To ascribe to the passage of this Bill into law the dire consequences of a fresh generation of obese children is absurd. Early-day motion 774 states:
	"European countries with the most cycling activity have the lowest obesity levels."
	We have all been taught to avoid making such simplistic judgments and using the naive logic that because two things have happened, one is the consequence of the other. There may be other factors that explain the variation apart from cycling.
	One of the booklets produced by the CTC states:
	"any measure that discourages cycling will have a profound effect on average life expectancy"
	and "likelihood of ill-health".
	That is a heroic overstatement. Without producing any evidence, the Cyclists Public Affairs Group asserts that the Bill would increase the number of deaths from obesity. For some children, if they do not bicycle, they will have to walk, which is another healthy activity, and children who bicycle may also take other forms of exercise.
	There has been no visible decline in horse riding since Harry Greenway's Bill reached the statute book a few years ago. Thirty years ago, one could ride a motor cycle without wearing a crash helmet, and when that law was changed, we heard the same arguments that it would deter people from riding motor cycles. However, I have met no one who is deterred from riding a motor bike because they must wear a helmet, and the same will be the case in a few years' time if this Bill reaches the statute book. To rest the argument on obesity, as some opponents do, is to assume, first, a large drop in cycling and, secondly, that as a result there will be substantial obesity that would not otherwise have occurred. I cannot accept that the matter is as simple as that.
	The CTC has also adduced the false sense of security argument—again, we heard that argument in the context of seat belts and motor cycle helmets—where it is claimed that when safety increases, one takes risks that one would not otherwise take. Speaking personally, wearing a helmet is part of a total risk reduction strategy, rather than a pretext for taking extra risks. By the way, that strategy includes avoiding those cylindrical security drums that emerge from the road as one comes into the Palace of Westminster, which have unhorsed me twice.
	On enforcement, again, we heard that argument in the debates about seat belts and motor cycle helmets. Yes, not everyone belts up, but that is not a serious argument for repealing the law on the compulsory use of seat belts. We have recently legislated on the use of mobile phones while driving, which I support, and I saw a piece in the paper yesterday indicating that not everyone obeys that law, but that does not mean that it should be repealed. If the law on helmets were changed, the vast majority would obey it, and it would be easier to enforce than, for example, the law on rear seat belts, because it is immediately obvious if someone is wearing a helmet.
	Carlie Annetts is one of my constituents, and she has written to every hon. Member. I commend her courage at a recent press conference and her campaign in favour of the Bill. Her son Troy was knocked off his bicycle about two years ago when he was not wearing a helmet, and sustained what seemed at the time to be a minor head injury, which sadly turned out to be fatal. He would almost certainly have been saved had he been wearing a helmet. His mother Carlie does not want other parents to go through what she has been through, and I commend her vigorous campaign in support of the Bill.
	Recent parliamentary answers from the Minister indicate that the Government want people to wear helmets, but they do not want to legislate at the moment and will review the option from time to time. It is clear that the Government have no objection in principle, and if voluntary wearing were to continue to increase, they would probably legislate at some point—but not yet. Last year, the Minister said:
	"At these levels making helmets compulsory would cause enforcement difficulties and without greater public acceptance could have an effect on levels of cycling."—[Official Report, 5 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 639W.]
	The previous Government, in which I played a modest role, said that it was
	"more effective at the present stage for Government actively to promote the voluntary wearing of helmets."—[Official Report, 8 July 1996; Vol. 281, c. 71.]
	However, that was nearly 10 years ago.
	The Minister's argument is a little perverse. More lives would be saved if there were 100 per cent. wearing of helmets. When voluntary wearing reaches, say, 80 per cent., he is prepared to legislate, but in terms of saving lives, the benefit of legislating then will be less than if he legislated now, when wearing is, say, 25 per cent. So if there is no objection in principle, why not do it now and save the extra lives? The Government's view is not whether, but when. If there is case for it, we should do it now. Of course the Government are concerned about greater public acceptance, to use the Minister's words, but the only survey that I have seen, of some 9,000 adults, found that 80 per cent. favoured mandatory wearing. That is the sort of majority with which any Member of this House would feel comfortable.
	I want to bring my remarks to a conclusion because other hon. Members want to speak. I hope that the Bill reaches the statute book. I believe that it has worthwhile benefits and that the case against it is not made. I understand the anxieties of the opponents of the Bill. Personally, I would be prepared to delay its implementation—that is left to the Secretary of State—for some time to give the Government an opportunity to narrow the gap of non-wearers and make wearing more acceptable. What the House should do now is make a clear statement of principle that this is a sensible safety measure, but we need a bit of time for people to adjust.
	I commend the hon. Member for Carlisle for introducing the Bill; should there be a Division, I shall be with him in the Lobby 100 per cent.

Peter Pike: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on his speech and on promoting the Bill. I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). I have always regarded him as a friend, although he is on the other side of the House. He is certainly well respected, and is one of the House's most famous cycling Members. I enjoyed his speech in favour of the Bill.
	I have a confession to make. When my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle chose this subject, I supported it right from the start, but it was not my intention to be here on a Friday to take part in the debate. I think hon. Members will know that I have for many years campaigned for the House to make all Fridays non-sitting days and to take private Members' Bills on another day. That is not because I want a shorter working week, but because I believe that it is important that Members can work in the constituency on a Friday, as it is the only time available to us when factories, schools and other places are working. Some Members who live in the south-east may not fully understand that, but it is a problem. Today, many Members throughout the country are involved in back to school day. I had a full programme of visits to four schools, but with their co-operation I am having my back to school day on 21 May, so Burnley's will be a bit later than the others.
	I changed my mind about attending the debate following a tragic incident in my constituency—the tragic death of James Hadfield, a young boy of 15, who was killed on his bike. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle said, it happened not on the road, but in Piccadilly park, a children's play area less than five minutes from where he lived—just round the corner, in fact. It is a small park with a skateboard area. He cycled into the park at some speed down the road on to the skateboard area, came off and, tragically, died. The incident received a lot of press coverage and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle spoke to the family.
	I went round to see the family the following Sunday. I did so with some trepidation, because contacting a family in a tragic personal situation is not the type of thing I normally do, but I understood from my own experience the impact of the tragedy of that boy's death on the family and the wider family. In 1956 and 1957, I did my national service in the Royal Marines. I was home for the August bank holiday when my younger brother, who was 17, went out on his motorbike. It was not compulsory to wear helmets in those days, although he normally did so. He went out for five minutes to fill up with petrol, hit a bit of broken road surface, hit the kerb and was killed outright. I will always remember the tragedy of my brother dying at that age. He was a very successful apprentice working for the London Electricity Board. I remember the tragedy not only of his death, but of the impact on my family. It took my mother many, many years to get over it. In fact, I do not think that she ever fully got over it, because the last thing that she did before he went out on that Sunday morning was to tell him off. We had gone out for a short walk, and when we got home the tragedy had happened.
	I therefore fully understand how the Hadfield family felt, and it was with some trepidation that I went round to see them. It was very clear that they fully support the Bill. I asked them how the press had treated them. These days, MPs tend to criticise the press and the press criticise MPs, and we are two of the professions of which the public have a poor opinion. However, the family said that the local press had treated them very fairly, sympathetically, compassionately and helpfully, and that its reports had been very clear and accurate. I want to quote from the report in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph on Monday 15 March. It says that the accident happened on a Saturday afternoon when the family was out buying a car. James's father says:
	"Our son Dylan was with him when it happened, he was the one to run home and get Victoria to ring us."
	Victoria was Jamie's sister. It continues:
	"He added: 'James loved life. He loved football, especially Burnley, fishing, cars and his BMX bike. When he was on that bike he had no fear, he was just like me when I was a child . . . We are not sure if a helmet would have saved his life because the handlebars crushed his chest but we know he suffered head injuries so it could have saved him."
	The family are being fair—they are not saying that it is 100 per cent. certain that a helmet could have saved his life, but that he would have had a better chance if he had been wearing one.
	The article states:
	"His parents today revealed that their son refused to wear a helmet because he claimed it wasn't fashionable. They are now urging other parents to ensure their children wear helmets."
	That is the problem, of course. Young people, especially those aged 13, 14 and 15, have a habit of thinking, "My mates won't wear that helmet—why should I?" They go out without one because they do not want to be laughed at and experience peer pressure.
	The article continues:
	"Step mother, Melanie . . . who is married to James' father also James . . . said: 'No matter what we said to him about wearing the helmet he just wouldn't do it. He was a typical teenager and wouldn't be told anything. All the other children wear them—it was a matter of course to them but to James, wearing a baseball cap was all he would wear. If this tragedy persuades one more person to wear a helmet then his death won't have been in vain."
	On the Tuesday, the Burnley Express reported:
	"The parents of James, 15, yesterday revealed how he refused to wear a safety helmet because it wasn't fashionable."
	It stressed that they support my hon. Friend's Bill and believe that if it helps to reduce the number of tragedies and serious injuries in future it is the right thing to do.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire attended the press launch of the Bill and campaign in the Jubilee Room a few weeks ago. Anyone who previously held a neutral view would have been persuaded by the medical evidence, not only about death but the injuries that a young person could sustain as a result of a serious accident. If the Bill saves some lives and prevents some serious injuries every year, it is worth supporting.
	The Burnley Express stated:
	"According to Lancashire County Council 26 people in the county were killed or seriously injured in cycle accidents and 127 injured between 1998 and 2002 . . . Bike Helmet Initiative Trust Executive Angie Lee said: 'If we are serious about protective clothing then the only effective way to do it is by law.'"
	The article continued:
	"Halford's who sell their own brand of helmets, Trax, and have a superstore based in . . . Burnley, said: 'We constantly work with the manufacturer to help make the helmets more fashionable, more colourful and more aerodynamic to escape the old skull-cap look. When we sell bikes we always encourage buyers to purchase a helmet and we cater for all pockets to make them accessible to everyone."
	Jamie had several younger brothers. Although that young boy would not wear a helmet because of facing his mates, he always encouraged his younger brothers to wear theirs. Indeed, he would not let them go out on their bikes if they were not wearing helmets because he believed that it was important that they should have them. However, because he was at that slightly older age, he would not wear one. People could say that that was a silly mistake—it was—but if it had been the law to wear a helmet, James would have done so. His mates would also have worn helmets and they would all have gone out wearing them.
	Yesterday, I received a fax, which I am sure that other hon. Members also received, to say that cycling supremo David Millar supports the Bill. He is an Olympic hopeful and he joins David Coulthard, who has done much to support wearing protective headgear. Of course, a bike is not David Coulthard's normal vehicle but he is a keen cyclist. He supports the Bill, as does Olympic cycling medallist Jason Queally. The fax states:
	"Mr. Millar challenges the notion that the measure is unpopular with cyclists. He said, 'If cycle helmets did not work it would be a different matter, but they do as a great many cyclists like me appreciate. As you would expect, I am fully in favour of cycling but recognise you must undertake the activity for sport or for pleasure responsibly, particularly if it is someone else's life. I would not put my child on a bike without ensuring their safety. I am sure this is the first of many provisions to be introduced for children, who, let's face it, are vulnerable because they are novice cyclists and who in many cases are not aware of potential dangers.'"
	I accept that many responsible parents will voluntarily try to persuade their children and teenagers to wear helmets but we know what teenagers are like—after all, we have all been teenagers. Enacting the Bill will provide protection and make wearing a helmet the norm. I do not accept that cycling will become less popular and that young people will be discouraged. Once the Bill is passed, there might be a few months of resistance, but once people have got used to it, they will accept it. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire was right to suggest a transitional period of a few months before implementing the Bill. His point was fair and reasonable.

David Cairns: On peer pressure and what children will or will not do, does my hon. Friend agree that young people regard going to school as deeply uncool and unpopular and that if it were voluntary, many would not go? However, it is the law, so young people go to school. It is feeble to argue that we should not even try simply because something is considered uncool and there is peer pressure to resist it.

Peter Pike: I agree. Many young people would not go to school if it were not the law. Once the law exists, people accept it. The breathalyser has been mentioned several times. When we introduced that and other drink laws, they were resisted. Nowadays most people accept them. When I first started to drive and I worked in a bank, we opened on Saturdays. We used to cash up at 12 o'clock and rush over to the pub where the senior staff had to buy all the junior staff as many drinks as possible before closing time, when they drove us home. I now wonder how on earth they drove. That was not challenged in the 1950s but we would regard it with horror nowadays because we understand that someone who has had a drink is a dangerous driver, just as we increasingly accept that speed is a killer and a cause of accidents. The same applies to seat belts. Who nowadays would say that we should abolish the law on seat belts? It is mostly accepted. In a small percentage of incidents perhaps a driver would be better off without a seat belt, but such instances are rare.

Mark Lazarowicz: Is that not the crux of the difference between seat belts and cycling helmets? Those who oppose the Bill suggest that its consequences of encouraging obesity and the negative public health effects far outweigh the benefits of the measure. Only a tiny number of lives would be saved by not wearing a safety belt. That is the difference between bicycle helmets and seat belts.

Peter Pike: I have great respect for my hon. Friend but I do not accept his point. I do not believe that any evidence exists to show that fewer people will cycle and that the health effects that he fears will happen. If the Bill saves some young people, however small the number, from death or serious injury, we have a responsibility to support it. That is the overwhelming argument in favour of the measure. Earlier, I referred to the death of my brother in a motor cycle accident. It was argued that fewer people would drive motor bikes if helmets were made compulsory, but that did not happen. Nowadays, more and more people are driving motor bikes. The increase in motor bike use is incredible.
	I accept that there is a balance to be struck, but I believe that it is in favour of passing the measure. I have examined the evidence of those who oppose it and those who have written to me to say that it will discourage bike riding. I have received three copies of the postcard published by the campaign to oppose the Bill. The postcard shows a photograph of a father with two kids on bikes, with the caption "Criminals?" splashed across it. People who organise such campaigns should be a little more sensible because the cards do not include space for an address, so I cannot reply to the three people who have written requesting my views. I take it that they are from Burnley, but I do not know.
	The postcard states:
	"Whatever your views on helmet-wearing it is clear that such a law would seriously threaten the efforts of Government and others to maximise the many health and other benefits of cycling. The available evidence shows that imposing helmet-wearing reduces cycle use, whilst the safety case for such a measure is far from clear. At a time of acute concern about Britain's obesity epidemic, the last thing we should be doing is legislating children and young teenagers into car-dependent sedentary lifestyles."
	Although one agrees with the objective of encouraging cycling, I do not agree with the conclusion. The campaign has not changed my view.

Russell Brown: My hon. Friend has been reading part of the postcard, but the card also says of the Bill:
	"Its purpose is to ban under-16s from cycling unless they are wearing a helmet."
	That is not what this legislation is about; it is about encouraging young people and ensuring that they make safety a priority. It is not about banning under-16s from cycling.

Peter Pike: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is a question of how we read the card. It has been written in a way that is most damaging to the case made by the Bill.
	We are debating a Bill that will protect young people, and I would hope that every young person would be encouraged to cycle as well as to participate in other healthy sports. I have no objection to that, and all of us who support the Bill want to see it happen. We do not want to see any reduction in the number of young people cycling. All we want is to see them cycling safely and getting to the end of their journey safely—whether it is for pleasure or for going to school or work—and not suffering serious injury or death that could have been prevented by their wearing a helmet. I shall certainly vote for the Bill, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle on introducing this most sensible measure.

Edward Leigh: I very much enjoyed the speeches of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), but I shall be the first Member today to oppose the Bill. I am a father, and all my children have cycled. Like all fathers, I have tried to encourage them to wear helmets. As they get older, it gets increasingly difficult to make them wear helmets, to cycle or to take any exercise at all.
	To take up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire, I do not take an extreme libertarian view on this matter. The House is entitled to legislate on matters of safety, but if it is wise, it will do so only when it is riding with public opinion. It was clearly doing that when it introduced the legislation on front seat belts, and I understand that 90 per cent. of people are sensible enough to know that it is wise to wear them. The battle to persuade people to wear rear seat belts in cars has been far more difficult. I always wear one, of course. I am certainly not going to announce publicly in the House of Commons that I break the law. I am told, however, that only about 50 per cent. of people use rear seat belts—the legislation on which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) in 1991. That shows some of the problems involved in such legislation and it is one of the problems with this Bill. We need to ride with public opinion.
	It worries me that there is a huge number of statistics going back and forth in this debate. It is dangerous to produce statistics, because someone can immediately intervene and produce a statistic to support the other side of the argument. We know, however, that the use of cycle helmets by children is very small, perhaps between 6 and 15 per cent. If any hon. Member wants to intervene and tell me that the figure is actually much higher, I will certainly give way, but I think that those figures are generally accepted.

Eric Martlew: I would agree with the hon. Gentleman's figures. If the figure were 70 or 80 per cent., I would probably not be introducing this Bill. It is because the figure is so low that I am introducing it.

Edward Leigh: That is a very honest intervention, and the hon. Gentleman has used it to make his point.
	There would be a serious problem of enforcement in regard to these measures, and I think that that is a problem for the Government. I suspect that that is why they will not give the Bill an entirely fair wind. The hon. Gentleman said that the Prime Minister supported it, but the Prime Minister actually said:
	"We will give serious consideration to it . . . if we can support it, I am sure that we will."—[Official Report, 31 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 1594.]
	I do not know what that means; I do not know whether the Government support the Bill or not. If I were speaking from the Government Front Bench, I would be very understanding of the problems that we face.
	The number of child deaths in these circumstances is small, although it is an appalling tragedy for the parents of every child who dies, and for their community. Even if only 20 children a year die, that is still 20 too many. However, the jury is out on whether we would save those lives by passing the Bill. My point is that there would be a serious problem of enforceability. When we introduce a law, we generally need to have the tide of public opinion with us.

Shona McIsaac: The hon. Gentleman and I represent neighbouring Lincolnshire seats, and I hope that he will accept that we have some of the worst road traffic accident statistics in the entire UK. I have no doubt that he constantly reads in our local newspaper, the Grimsby Telegraph, about the number of young cyclists who are injured in our area. Will he tell me whether he is against the wearing of cycle helmets, or purely against the element of compulsion?

Edward Leigh: Of course I am not against wearing cycle helmets. Those of us who oppose the Bill must accept the argument that someone who wears one is probably less likely to sustain an injury than someone who does not. It would be absurd to say that wearing one made people more liable to injury. The problem with cycle helmets is that most of the 20 kids who die each year die from serious multiple injuries. They do not die from falling from their bicycle on to a hard, flat surface. In a moment, I shall adduce a learned opinion, which argues that, because of the standards applied to helmets, most of them will prevent injury only if the wearer falls from their bike on to a hard surface. They will not save someone who is hit by a car or who suffers multiple injuries.

Eric Martlew: The figure is actually 28 children a year, based on the last three years. Obviously, that is too many. On the hon. Gentleman's point about injuries, a high percentage of those youngsters die from head injuries. It is obvious that other parts of the body are less vulnerable than the brain. Also, the Bill prescribes what kind of helmet will have to be used, so the Government will be able to ensure that people wear very good ones.

Edward Leigh: I am glad to hear that, because it leads me precisely to my next point. I am sure that the Government will have an opinion on the issues of compliance in this regard. If we are to impose new standards on the cycle helmet industry, there will be costs and difficulties involved. I am sure that the hon. Member for Carlisle will have read the opinion of Brian Walker, who is one of the leading experts on the mechanics of helmets. His company, Head Protection Evaluation, is the principal UK test laboratory for helmets. He argues that
	"with only one or two exceptions, the helmets tested"—
	these are the helmets in general use now—
	"were quite incapable of meeting the higher Snell B-90 standard"—
	which pertained in the early 1990s—
	"to which many of the models had been previously certified. Some helmets were even incapable of meeting the weak EN1078 standard. Some people argue that helmets are effective if 'properly worn'. How those words have haunted me through many years! Apart from some racing cyclists, I hardly ever see a cycle helmet worn properly . . . we have examined many cycle helmets that were manufactured in such a manner that correct adjustment was completely impossible."
	Brian Walker goes on to quote a High Court case. This relates to the important point about whether those 28 children's lives could have been saved. If that number of lives could be saved by the Bill, I accept that I should probably have to withdraw my opposition to it. It is important not to take an absolutist point of view in these debates. Mr. Walker says that, in a recent High Court case,
	"a respected materials specialist argued that a cyclist who was brain injured from what was essentially a fall from their cycle, without any real forward momentum, would not have had their injuries reduced or prevented by a cycle helmet. This event involved contact against a flat tarmac surface with an impact energy potential of no more than 75 joules (his estimate, with which I was in full agreement).
	The court found in favour of his argument. So a High Court has decided that cycle helmets do not prevent injury even when falling from a cycle onto a flat surface, with little forward momentum. Cycle helmets will almost always perform much better against a flat surface than any other."
	Brian Walker continues:
	"Referring back to the Court case mentioned earlier, the very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work, tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting for either side, and the technical expert, to state that one must be safer wearing a helmet than without. All three refused to do so, stating that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and without cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the performance of cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to be made."
	That quotation from an expert in child safety and in helmet manufacture shows some of the difficulties with those arguments. I use it only to make an argument; the House need not necessarily accept it, but there are two sides to the question. There are difficulties over how effective helmets are and there is argument over whether the 28 lives a year would have been saved had the Bill become law two or three years ago.

Eric Martlew: I am a little confused, because the hon. Gentleman said earlier that he accepts that cycle helmets help. Now he says that the evidence is that they do not. Perhaps he can clarify that.

Edward Leigh: To be honest, I do not wear a helmet when I ride a bicycle. I accept, however, that I would probably be safer if I did so. I am not an expert; I am just using my own common sense. As laymen, people presume that if they wear something on their head when they are riding a bicycle, they are safer. All I am saying is that, although that is a common-sense point of view, there are eminent neurosurgeons—eminent specialists in this field—who argue that it is not necessarily a given fact that those 28 lives would have been saved had the Bill become law.

Russell Brown: This morning, we have concentrated on the loss of 28 lives a year, averaged over the past two or three years. But there is also the serious issue of severe head injuries. The Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust says that a child is twice as likely to fall off a bicycle—not necessarily be involved in an accident with another vehicle—and sustain an injury, which could be a head injury. In that respect, surely we should do something to lessen the impact of any injury that an individual, especially a child, may suffer.

Edward Leigh: It would be ridiculous if I argued from an absolutist's point of view that people should not try to persuade their children to wear a cycle helmet. If a young child falls off a bicycle on to a hard, flat surface, wearing a cycle helmet will undoubtedly help. Therefore, all of us in the House and parents want to encourage our children to wear a helmet. All I am saying is that there is low use of cycle helmets and no conclusive evidence that the 28 lives would have been saved if the Bill had become law.
	To move on to the second aspect of my speech, it is possible that there will be a serious impact on cycle use if the Bill becomes law.

Mark Lazarowicz: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as I want to intervene on that point. Like him, I encourage my children to wear cycle helmets. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) referred to children who fall off a stationary bike with no impact from a vehicle. The distance fallen by such children could hardly be more than 2 ft or 3 ft. Falling down a few stairs could cause head injury, but no one suggests that because of that danger, pedestrians should wear helmets when they walk the streets.

Edward Leigh: That is a difficulty with the Bill. We have established that cycle helmets are certain to save people from serious injury only if they have a relatively low fall with an impact which an eminent expert described as involving
	"no more than 75 joules".
	How far should we go? Reference has been made to the nanny state. I hesitate to use that term because I believe that the state has a right to intervene in a matter in certain circumstances where there is general public consent. I do not think that there is such public consent over this matter at the moment.
	We must refer to what has happened in other parts of the world. I intervened on the hon. Member for Carlisle over what happened in Australia. He said that cycle use had since recovered there, but in New Zealand there was also a large fall—20 per cent., I think—and there has been no recovery in cycle use. Apparently, when such laws were introduced in Sydney, the immediate effect was a dramatic drop of about 91 per cent. in secondary school children cycling to school.
	The hon. Gentleman, I think, said that it is not cool to wear cycle helmets. That is a real difficulty that he has to face. If his Bill became law, there would be a genuine, immediate difficulty in persuading many secondary school children to wear helmets. Many simply would not ride to school. He must address that point, along with all the evidence from around the world—Nova Scotia, New Zealand, Australia—which all points to a dramatic fall in bicycle use.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire mentioned obesity. I have read the literature from those who oppose the Bill and I accept his point that perhaps it is a little extreme to suggest that if the Bill became law the obesity epidemic would suddenly become much worse. That overstates the case and, as usual, my right hon. Friend, in his moderate and sensible way, made that point very well. The fact of the matter is, however, that in 2001, 16 per cent. of six to 15-year-old children were obese. That is a real problem.
	I am not suggesting that if we pass the Bill we will suddenly have an obesity epidemic, but do we want to discourage cycle use when everybody in the Chamber—we are a load of cycling enthusiasts—cycles?

Eric Forth: No.

Edward Leigh: A possible exception is my right hon. Friend, who would not be seen dead on a bicycle.

Eric Martlew: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman warned us about statistics, but he has gone on to quote them several times, although he has not mentioned British Columbia in Canada. May I point it out to him that cycle use in this country is dropping like a stone anyhow? We do not have that particular policy, but there has been a 30 per cent. drop in 20 years. That is set out in the document, "Bicycle Helmets: review of effectiveness", which I am sure the Minister is aware of. The number of people using bicycles is declining. I believe that parents would be happier if they felt that their children would be safer.

Edward Leigh: That is a fair point. Obviously, we each have our opinion. The hon. Gentleman is right: since 1991 in Great Britain, the fall in cycle use has been almost twice the increase in helmet use, so that fall has been dramatic without a dramatic increase in helmet use. I doubt whether the Bill would discourage that fall in cycle use.
	The hon. Gentleman will not accept any of my statistics and I am sure he could introduce others to the debate, but surely, as a reasonable man, he accepts it as a reasonable supposition that there has been a dramatic fall in cycle use in this country. Relatively few children wear helmets; his Bill might aggravate the situation. There is already a problem with child health and a huge problem with encouraging children to take exercise, walk, play games and cycle. We have different medical and expert opinions on how many lives would be saved by the Bill. Given all those facts, is this the time to introduce the Bill? I do not believe that the Bill is timely. There is a lot more that the Government could do to encourage safety, to try to take the voluntary route and to persuade parents that it is advisable that their children wear cycle helmets.
	A lot of fun has been had at the expense of cycle organisations—the men in lycra—and over whether it is possible to achieve any agreement among those people, who are just enthusiasts. We should beware any Bill that appears to be opposed by so many representative organisations in the cycling world. Does not that give us pause for thought, at least for a moment?
	Cycling use has declined dramatically and virtually every cycling organisation is against. The hon. Member for Carlisle has already been asked in an intervention whether a single cycling organisation supports his Bill.

Eric Martlew: The organisation that supports the Bill is behind professional cyclists. Wearing a helmet is compulsory for them.

Edward Leigh: I heard the hon. Gentleman making that point, which, if he does not mind my saying so, I think is very weak. Professional cycling is a completely different world from what we are talking about. Those are sporting people who are at the edge of what is safe. They often ride in very difficult circumstances. Does not the fact that only one organisation supports the Bill give us pause for concern?
	We are supposed to be encouraging people to cycle, and I do not think that this Bill will do so. I am sorry to say that ultimately, the Bill will result in more ill health in the long term, as there will be less healthy exercise, which will have an impact on the national health service. I do not think that this measure would have saved all those 28 lives, and the Bill should be opposed and resisted, or at least heavily amended.

Mark Lazarowicz: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on the way in which he presented his Bill, and on taking on a subject that any of us who have been involved in transport issues, especially cycling, knows will be liable to provoke strong emotion on either side of the argument. When I was fortunate to come high in the private Member's Bill ballot a couple of years ago, the subject that I chose, employee share schemes, did not seem to provoke the same enthusiasm or emotion on either side of the argument that understandably exists on an issue of this nature.
	My constituency is a long way from London, so I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), do not find it possible to attend regularly on Fridays for private Member's Bills. I therefore look at the agenda to work out which Bills I want to be in Westminster for. On this day, this Bill, and the subsequent Bill, which I am sure will also be worthy of detailed examination, attracted my attention, so I decided some time ago to make a specific effort to be here for Second Reading. At that stage, I generally supported the Bill's objectives; like most people who are interested in road safety, including those in the Chamber today, my gut reaction was that the Bill must be a sensible idea. However, as I have had information sent to me, and as I have tried to investigate the subject in more detail, I have swung from being generally supportive to being extremely sceptical—certainly about the breadth of its proposals. I am not saying that I would oppose the Bill in its entirety, but I would have to be convinced strongly that it would be right to take it forward. In those circumstances, I am sure that my hon. Friend wishes that I had not bothered coming here today, but having made arrangements to be here a long time ago, I want to contribute to the debate.
	My earlier interventions may have given some indication of the reasons for my shift of position, and I want to explain the reasoning behind my growing doubts. My attention was first drawn to possible problems with the Bill by the postcard from the CTC to which my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley referred. Like him, I was somewhat amused that the letter inviting me to express my opinions did not give me an address to which I could respond. I was also struck by the way in which the postcard featured a picture of a happy family cycling in summer on a rural path, with, stamped across it, the word "criminals". I wondered whether that was really the content of the Bill.
	On issues of this nature, I am aware that when people try to lobby MPs, they put their case in the strongest possible terms, and, like the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), I am aware that, in this field in particular, emotions and simplifications of the argument can be the order of the day. I was therefore dubious about whether the Bill would make this happy cycling family into criminals. I therefore studied the Bill, and it is true that it would make that family, apparently doing no harm to anyone by cycling along a rural off-road path, into criminals.
	I looked at the Bill in a little more detail and considered an example that I gave in an earlier intervention from when I took one of my children to a local park, and she met one of her friends, who offered to let her ride her bicycle for a short period. That indicates the problem with the Bill's approach. We must move towards regarding cycling as being as natural a way of getting around the community as walking. We do not want it to require special protection. No one suggests that pedestrians should have to wear helmets when they cross the road, but pedestrians are much more likely to suffer head injury than cyclists.

Eric Martlew: Is my hon. Friend really saying that, in percentage terms, children are more likely to suffer injury as pedestrians than the 6 per cent. of children who cycle? I do not accept that.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am saying that if we consider the overall figures, we see that children are more likely to be injured as pedestrians than as cyclists. When using statistics in this argument, we must be very careful, as I said earlier. My point was that we want to make cycling a natural activity. One of the reasons that I was happy on the occasion that I mentioned to let my child cycle without a helmet, although I encourage my older children to wear cycle helmets, was precisely that I wanted to encourage the younger child to learn to cycle. It seemed natural to allow my child to cycle in the park on that occasion. My hon. Friend says that, although in theory I would be a criminal for allowing her to do that, the law will be ignored, and nothing will be done to enforce it. That may be the case, but as a general principle we should avoid making laws that, in many circumstances, we do not want people to obey. The Bill provides for the banning of off-road cycling without a helmet by children under 16, which is an extreme measure that I would not find acceptable.
	I accept that there will be some occasions when an injury or, in extreme cases, a fatality, of a child riding a bicycle off-road could have been prevented if a cycle helmet had been worn, but we must guard against seeking to legislate against all danger that could conceivably occur. There are many dangerous things in the world, including in playgrounds, but we do not legislate to make them all entirely impossible. I do not want to go into the statistics in great detail, but I suspect that the most dangerous thing in many playgrounds is play equipment. It has been made much safer in recent years, but injuries and fatalities of children still occur in playgrounds. We are not suggesting, however, that we should take away play equipment in its entirety to reduce injuries and deaths. We try to minimise the danger, but we must recognise that there must always be some level of risk in any human activity.

Oona King: My hon. Friend is right that there must be some level of risk. Over the past 150 years, however, have we not legislated consistently in terms of harm avoidance, and in terms of prevention being better than cure? As for being arrested for allowing children on bikes, surely common sense would prevail, in the same way that parents are not arrested at present for doing various such things. It is unlikely in the extreme that that would change in this instance.

Mark Lazarowicz: If it is unlikely in the extreme that this aspect of the law would be enforced, it is questionable whether there is much point in the law in the first place. If we do not think that the law should be put into effect, why put it on the statute book in the first place?

Eric Martlew: My hon. Friend's argument is lost on me. When he was talking about play areas, he said that we do not take away the play equipment but make the play safer. My Bill will not take away the bicycle but make the riding of the bicycle safer.

Mark Lazarowicz: I was merely suggesting that there were various ways of incurring various types of injury. We are not talking about protecting people against all injuries; we are trying to establish whether the benefits of the Bill are proportionate to the downside. That downside—the health implications and the problem of obesity—distinguishes this from measures relating to the wearing of seat belts and motor cycle helmets.

Peter Pike: It is true that playground equipment, at least in Burnley, is much safer than it was when I was seven or eight, during the war. Steps have been taken to make it safer, and most positive councils have changed the playground surface to minimise injuries if children fall from the equipment. We have not stood still in that respect, so why should we do so in this instance?

Mark Lazarowicz: Of course I am pleased that playgrounds have been made safer. Indeed, I was involved in such measures when I was in another area of politics. The Bill, however, would not just encourage higher safety standards; it would ban certain activities if a helmet was not worn. The logical corollary would be requiring children to wear helmets in playgrounds, because they still fall off even safe playground equipment.

Edward Leigh: I have led a busy life ski-ing, riding and engaging in a number of extreme sports. The only serious injury that I have incurred was sustained 18 months ago in a playground. I broke my leg badly in two places when I was walking down a ramp 2 ft high. It was a brand new playground featuring all the latest safety equipment described by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). I was in hospital for four days.

Mark Lazarowicz: rose—

David Cairns: What was the hon. Gentleman doing in a playground anyway?

Mark Lazarowicz: That is a good question.
	My point is that all sorts of human activity involve dangers. We must ask what response is proportionate, given that we cannot legislate against all the risks that may be posed to us or our children.

Russell Brown: We cannot wrap children in cotton wool. Certain injuries are reparable. I remember seeing the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) after he sustained his injury having severe difficulty in moving around the Palace. Broken bones are one thing, but head injuries are another. Serious head injuries are not easily repaired and may be fatal. We want to lessen the impact that an accident may have on a child.

Mark Lazarowicz: Of course, and I should make it clear that I wear a helmet when riding a bicycle and encourage my children to do the same. I do not suggest for a moment that helmets should not be worn. It is a question of the possible negative consequences of a ban.
	I said that I began to change my mind when I realised that the Bill would prevent children from cycling in parks without wearing helmets. My constituents then started to express their views. Obviously, Members must take account of how widely and how strongly constituents express an opinion, and I was surprised by the number of letters—not a vast number, but certainly a fair number—that opposed the Bill, in reasonable and measured tones. Members are not always able to represent their constituents' views in votes, but it does no harm to try to represent their views in the Chamber if there is no powerful argument against them.

Eric Martlew: I am surprised that my hon. Friend, an experienced Member of Parliament, believes that those who shout loudest normally constitute the majority. A poll of 900 people showed that 80 per cent. of the public favoured my Bill. Did my hon. Friend talk to staff in accident and emergency departments, for instance?

Mark Lazarowicz: I shall come to the views of the medical profession shortly.
	It is true that those who shout loudest do not necessarily constitute the majority, but it is also true that the majority do not always produce the best arguments. That poll was taken among the general population. I am not sure what the result would have been if cyclists and those whose children cycle had been polled, but such a poll might have been more helpful.

Shona McIsaac: rose—

Mark Lazarowicz: I do not want to stop the Bill making progress, but I will give way.

Shona McIsaac: My hon. Friend says that it might have been more instructive to ask for the views of cyclists, as opposed to umbrella organisations. I discussed the matter with Mike Davis, editor of BIKEmagic, who put a discussion thread on the website and on that of RoadCyclingUK. That suggested that opinion on the Bill was fairly evenly split, but the "antis" were keen to stress that they were not opposed to the wearing of helmets, but were concerned about the compulsion issue. My hon. Friend seems to be saying that cycle helmets should never be worn.

Mark Lazarowicz: If my hon. Friend thinks that I am saying that, she cannot have heard what I said earlier—three times, I believe. I support the wearing of helmets, and wear a helmet myself. The issue is what the consequences of a ban might be for public health and obesity rates.
	Undoubtedly, if the Bill is passed some lives will be saved—although the number may be disputed—and many more injuries will be prevented. In debates such as this, Members tend to say that any measure that saves a single life must be supported, no matter what. That is a natural response, and of course if a life can be saved with no negative consequences we should take action to save even that one life, but actions designed with the best of motives—to reduce the number of injuries and save lives—often have unintended results elsewhere. It has been suggested, for instance, that safety measures designed to prevent a few deaths on the railways discourage rail traffic and hence lead to more deaths on the roads. This is a complex area, and we should take account of the knock-on effects of the best-intended measures.
	That is particularly important in respect of this Bill, and it brings us to the crux of the argument. If it were just a question of lives being saved by the compulsory wearing of helmets, no matter how few, I would certainly strongly support such a measure, but what concerns me is the evidence that, if fewer children rode bicycles, it would increase obesity and have negative public health effects. That might not be a consequence of this measure but the evidence and other arguments strongly suggest that it could be.
	I want to refer to some of the views that have been expressed, albeit not at too great length. The first powerful arguments are those advanced in the Transport Research Laboratory study. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle referred correctly to the conclusion of that extensive, excellent study which stated:
	"There is now a considerable amount of scientific evidence that bicycle helmets have been found to be effective at reducing head, brain and upper facial injury in bicyclists."
	That is a correct and important point to make. It is a powerful argument, it would appear, in favour of the compulsory wearing of helmets, as proposed in the Bill, but my hon. Friend did not go through the other points in the TRL report. I do not blame him for highlighting that point because it was relevant to his arguments, but the TRL identified four criteria against which any measures for compulsory helmet wearing legislation should be judged. The first is
	"There must be a high level of scientific evidence that bicycle helmets are effective in reducing the rate of head injury to bicyclists."
	The report effectively says that and we do not disagree. However, the second criterion is:
	"The benefits to society and others of mandatory bicycle helmets must be convincingly demonstrated, mandatory bicycle helmets cannot be justified simply to protect individual adult bicyclists."
	The TRL concludes that that criterion
	"is less easy to demonstrate . . . bicycle helmet promotion and legislation needs to be seen as one part of a broader package of measures which enhances bicycling safety."
	The third criterion probably does not point either way in this argument, so I will not waste the House's time by going over it, but the final criterion is relevant. In the view of the TRL
	"There must be good evidence to suggest that compulsory helmet wearing would not make the public health benefits of increased levels of bicycling significantly harder to obtain."
	The TRL concluded in relation to that criterion that
	"there is some evidence that legislation may have resulted in decreased levels of bicycling . . . but there are confounding factors and no clear long-term trends. Attention needs to be paid to enhancing the bicycling environment generally rather than concentrating solely on the individual approach of wearing helmets."

Eric Martlew: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has given way; he has been very patient with me. My notes are upstairs, but the first quote that he used goes on to say that bicycle helmets are effective for everyone, but especially for children. He did not quote that bit. This measure will apply only to children. I considered whether it should apply across the board. I decided, because of the points that he has made, not to go ahead, but I think that the case for protecting children is overwhelming.

Mark Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend is correct. I did not set out the quote in full simply because I accepted his point on that criterion and did not want to delay the House unduly.
	The TRL report is interesting. It certainly does not point conclusively to the Bill having the overall beneficial effects that my hon. Friend suggests it will.
	My hon. Friend asked for the views of local hospitals. We have a report from the British Medical Association, the conclusions of which are very interesting. It says:
	"Focusing on cycle helmets as the answer to reducing cycle accidents could detract resources from other more effective means of accident prevention. The promotion of cycle helmet wearing"—
	which I understand the BMA supports, as I do—
	"should, therefore, form only one part of a broader strategy to promote cycling as a healthy, physically active, mode of transport. It should be accompanied by other measures for reducing the number and severity of cycle accidents, such as reducing vehicle speeds and traffic volume in urban areas, and the provision of a safer environment for all cyclists, including riders of tandems and tricycles."
	It seems that efforts could be more usefully focused on that than on measures that could have effects, it is strongly suggested, on public health in terms of encouraging obesity, particularly among the young generation of today, who, if they do not cycle as children, are less likely to cycle in later life.

David Cairns: I apologise to my hon. Friend for missing the preamble to his speech. Much as I am enjoying hearing him reading out the House of Commons Library brief on the debate, the thrust of his argument appears to be that the Bill would lead to a substantial reduction in the number of people who are bicycling. In that case, why does he think that the Bill is supported by Halfords, the largest retailer of bicycles? It cannot just be because it also sells helmets. Helmets are far cheaper than bicycles. Surely, it will have made a business case. If it thought that the Bill would lead to an enormous tailing off in the number of people buying bikes, it would not support the Bill.

Mark Lazarowicz: I think that we heard earlier that there are those within the industry who are against the Bill. There is a range of views on the matter. I am sure that Halfords has considered the matter carefully in reaching its opinion on the Bill.
	As my hon. Friend rightly indicated, the question has to be seen in its overall context. I am extremely sceptical about the Bill. I have indicated that I could still be persuaded, certainly as far as cycling on the road is concerned, but the proposals on cycling off the road go much too far. What concerns me are the possible public health consequences.

Russell Brown: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mark Lazarowicz: I will in a second if my hon. Friend will allow me to make a bit more progress.
	The issue that must influence our final decision is the balance between the lives to be saved as a result of the Bill, and its downside in terms of public health. I do not want to repeat statistics that, I accept, could be met with other statistics, but it is the case that we have an increasing obesity epidemic in this country. Obesity is becoming more of a serious problem among children in particular. When not just the more opinionated organisations within the cycling lobby but a wide range of reputable organisations—those that are somewhat removed from the high emotions on the subject—express severe concerns about the public health consequences of the Bill, that should make us think before going ahead with it in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle suggested.

Eric Joyce: Does my hon. Friend agree that common sense has its place, too? As I was cycling in this morning, I was navigating a busy junction near Brixton and I cycled past someone who had a helmet on—full marks for that—but who was also using a mobile phone. Does my hon. Friend think that common sense and education have their place in reducing injuries among cyclists on the roads?

Mark Lazarowicz: I am not entirely certain what my hon. Friend's point is in relation to my argument, but I am certainly to happy to agree with him. As I was cycling to the House of Commons yesterday and while stationary at a red traffic light, I was almost knocked off my bike by another cyclist who went past me at high speed and through the red light. Such behaviour by cyclists is as reprehensible as any breaking of the rules of the highway by other users of public highways.

Andrew Dismore: Perhaps my hon. Friend could tell us whether the cyclist who sped past him and through the red light was wearing a helmet. One of the important arguments is that helmets can sometimes provide a false sense of security.

Mark Lazarowicz: Although I was stationary, I was wearing a helmet, but the cyclist who went past me at high speed was not. I am afraid that is a point against my hon. Friend's argument. Because of the speed at which the other cyclist was travelling, I was not able to see whether it was my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) who went past me at high speed.

Russell Brown: My hon. Friend suggested that he could be won over and said that he saw some sense in a Bill to deal with cycling on the public roads. However, I remind him that the research paper from the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust showed that 90 per cent. of injuries to child cyclists occur off-road.

Mark Lazarowicz: As I have indicated, I want to weigh all sides of the argument. If that research is accurate, it may well persuade me not to support the Bill at all. If the issue is off-road cycling, we must ask ourselves whether we should put into effect a measure that would make it illegal for parents to allow young children to cycle around their local public park. That is what the Bill would do. If that it is what we are really proposing, we may be approaching the issue in the wrong way. Perhaps it should be a question of encouraging the wearing of bicycle helmets rather than legislating if legislation has such effects.

Meg Munn: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend has said. Is it not sensible that, in off-road conditions, parents or carers should decide whether the circumstances merit the wearing of helmets? In the case that he described involving his five-year-old daughter, wearing a helmet was probably not necessary.

Mark Lazarowicz: Indeed. The problem is that I do not see how to include in legislation an option for parents to decide whether the wearing of a helmet is appropriate. It would be impossible to draft a Bill that would cover such eventualities.
	It had not been my intention to speak at such length. I have never been in favour of talking out measures by making lengthy speeches, but I do not think that I can be criticised for that on this occasion, because my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle spoke for an hour and took many interventions. However, if we are trying to reduce injuries not just to child cyclists but to all cyclists, our emphasis should be on considering the whole range of conditions on the road. Although they do not make cycling dangerous, they make it more dangerous than it ought to be. They certainly give the impression to many non-cyclists that it is more dangerous than it actually is. Many measures could be brought into effect widely throughout the country to encourage safety for all road users, but particularly for cyclists. The Government have done a lot of good work, with all-party support in some cases, to promote road safety. The overall promotion of road safety is the most pressing need if we are to reduce injuries and deaths among all road users, and particularly children—whether they are cyclists, pedestrians or passengers in motor vehicles.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That the House sit in private.

Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 163 (motion to sit in private):—
	The House divided: Ayes 0, Noes 25.

It appearing on the report of the Division that 40 Members were not present, Madam Deputy Speaker declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next sitting of the House.

Constitution for the European Union (Referendum) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

John Maples: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I had not expected to speak for an hour or two yet, but I am delighted to do so. I am also delighted to be, for the first time in 12 years, introducing into the House a Government Bill. It was in 1992 that I last moved a Government Bill. If the Government accept the Bill, which is apparently their policy now, it would save us all a great deal of time and trouble. We will come to the one clause on which, I expect, they will hang their objection.
	I introduced an almost identical Bill as a ten-minute Bill in November. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) spoke against it with passion and at length, although I imagine that in pursuit of his career he has now changed his views. The Government Whips whipped Labour Members to vote against that Bill and killed it off. This is the same Bill, and the Government's policy has changed to the point where this is what they say they intend to do, sooner or later. Far from the fox having been shot, he is now the king of the jungle, and when his head finally goes on the wall when the British public vote "No", it will be accompanied by the Prime Minister's head.
	That is the nemesis for the Government's appallingly hypocritical policy of going along with everything the European Union proposes. The policy of never being isolated means that they never stand up for their rights, however right they think they are. We are seeing the culmination of that. The Government have performed not just a U-turn, but have spun an almost infinite number of times and ended up facing 180o from where they started.
	I suspect that the reasons for that have nothing to do with the Prime Minister's desire to consult the peasants on what they think about the issue, but everything to do with electoral advantage—with removing the matter as an issue at the European elections and, more importantly, at the general election, in the same way as the commitment to allow a referendum on the euro meant that at the last election the Prime Minister was able to say, "This election isn't about the euro. You'll get a separate vote on that." He will now be able to say, "This election isn't about the European constitution. You'll get a separate vote on that."

Mike O'Brien: Would the hon. Gentleman remind us of how he voted on the question whether there should be a referendum on the Single European Act? I know that he was not in the House during the Maastricht debate, but presumably he thinks that the Conservative Government were wrong to deny a referendum on Maastricht, too.

John Maples: I shall come to that. One of my arguments is that at some point between the treaty of Rome in 1956 and the federal superstate to which I believe we are headed, there should be a referendum. The fact that there was not one at the time of Maastricht—I was not in the House and did not vote on it, though in my usual loyal way I would probably have voted with the Government of the day—reinforces rather than undermines the case for a referendum now. I also point out to the hon. Gentleman that there was a general election between the signing and adoption of the Maastricht treaty and the Bill ratifying it. They took place in different Parliaments. There was a general election in between, which alters the case.
	The Government's proposed referendum has nothing to do with consulting the people; it is to do with saving the Prime Minister's skin. Perhaps he does admit to fundamental change. He would have to, given that he said on 29 October—not that long ago, though an aeon in the Prime Minister's ideological positioning:
	"I do not believe it is necessary to have a referendum"—
	on an EU constitution—
	"unless there is a fundamental change in the nature of the relationship between the member state and the European Union."—[Official Report, 29 October 2003; Vol. 412, c. 298.]
	The fact that we are to have a referendum presumably means that the Prime Minister concedes that there is a fundamental change.
	I would not go quite that far. I think that there is a significant change, and the fact that what is proposed is called a constitution introduces some legal points that I should like to explore. There has been a piecemeal collection of treaties that have advanced the position considerably during the past 48 years.
	The Government have held 34 referendums so far. I am probably one of the few people who know that, as I had to count them up for my ten-minute Bill. Most of those have been held from the desire to do something positive or to give people a positive choice. This is the first to be held by the Government out of fear. That will come back to haunt them whatever they do on the issue, because they have got the fundamentals wrong and they do not have a policy that makes sense.

David Cairns: The question to be put in the referendum appears in the Bill. How many other referendum questions were included in legislation, and how many were devised through some other mechanism?

John Maples: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. In the case of the Scottish Parliament, this House decided on the powers of that Parliament, so the legislation enacted those powers. If the Government adopt the treaty establishing the European Union constitution at Dublin, or whenever it comes up, the House can only ratify it or not; it cannot amend it. The difference in the case of the other referendums that there have been is that the House was in a position to set the substance of the legislation on which the country was voting. In this case the question is simple: "Do you or do you not approve the ratification of the treaty establishing the European Union constitution?" I imagine that when the Government come forward with their Bill, they will pose a similar question.

David Cairns: Just to clarify this point, because I am not sure what the process will be, the question that the hon. Gentleman wants to be put to the British public is one that presumably he has devised and has put in the Bill. It is not as he just said; it is subtly different. It is:
	"Should the United Kingdom be bound by the Treaty establishing a Constitution for the European Union?"
	It could be argued that the way in which he has framed that question betrays his view of what the answer should be. Should we not be trying to devise a question that is a bit more neutral than that?

John Maples: I am missing the hon. Gentleman's point. I would be perfectly happy in Committee to accept an amendment that made the question neutral. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the question is not neutral and seeks a "No" vote, I would be perfectly happy to accept an amendment to achieve neutrality. At the end of the day, the Electoral Commission will have something to say about the nature of the question. I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's first intervention.
	If the treaty is adopted in June, the Government can set about this in two ways. They can combine ratification and the referendum in one Bill. They can set out the treaty in the Bill and then say that it will not be ratified unless and until there has been a referendum, and that Bill could go through the House. Alternatively, they could separate the matters into two Bills, and it would be possible to pass the referendum Bill and seek the referendum before even introducing the ratification Bill. The simplest way is probably to make the referendum a pre-condition for ratification and to have them in the same Bill, but the point that I was seeking to make is that the constitution itself, when it comes before the House, will not be amendable by us. We either have to accept it or reject it in total. Therefore, the legislation will be fairly simple, and it could go through Parliament fairly quickly.
	My Bill calls for the referendum to be held within six months of the treaty being adopted, and I understand that that technically means the point at which it is agreed at the intergovernmental conference. There will then be a delay during which the full text is made available for signature, which usually happens a few weeks later, and then ratification. I want the six months to run from when our Government and every other Government agree the constitution and adopt it at an intergovernmental conference. It looks as though that will happen between 18 and 20 June. It could run longer, but I do not think that there is any need to delay past that. There is a serious issue, for reasons that I will come to, and if the British public are to be invited to settle the matter, they should be invited to do so fairly soon.
	The only matter of substance in my Bill to which the Government might object is the call for that referendum to be within six months. Who would want to delay the referendum beyond six months? Not even the most Eurosceptic Conservative Member would want to delay the referendum, because that is what we have been asking for. We are willing to abide by the decision of the British public, so we will not try to delay it. The House of Lords will not try to delay it. One of the reasons why the Government have changed their policy is that they feared that the House of Lords would introduce into the Bill a provision for a referendum.
	The only people who have an interest in delaying the referendum after the treaty is adopted are the Government. The reason for that is that they do not want it before the general election; they want to defer it beyond the general election. The earliest that the general election might be is next spring or summer, so we are talking about a referendum in the autumn of 2005, which will be 15 months after the treaty setting out the constitution was adopted. What can possibly be the excuse or justification for that, other than proving what I firmly believe to be the case—that this referendum is nothing to do with asking the British people what they think about this issue but with getting the Prime Minister and his skin through the next general election?
	I suggest to the Government that it would be simpler to use my Bill. We could all save each other and the House of Commons an awful lot of trouble by letting the Bill go into Committee. I would very much welcome any such concession from the Minister. I am sure that, in such a Committee, we could accept amendments or agree a text for the resolution, timetable and everything else that is necessary. The measure would be on the statute book, and the Prime Minister and Government would not be able to say, "Oh well, we've got to get the referendum Bill through Parliament", because it would have been done in advance.
	I believe that the ratification Bill could then be passed very quickly. It would be for those above my pay grade and that of my hon. Friends who are present to agree a timetable with the Government now, but I think that I can confidently say that the Conservative party would be willing to ensure that the two necessary measures, if there are to be separate ratification and referendum Bills, go through Parliament in very short order. I agree that they should be properly debated. A very important issue is at stake, and before the public make up their mind it would be best for them to hear what their representatives in Parliament have to say. However, that could be done in two or three days on the Floor of the House. Such a Bill would not be amendable; there would be no point in having a Committee stage or, for that matter, even a Report stage. It would need fairly lengthy consideration on Second Reading.
	I am sure that my party would like to see such a measure on the statute book. Obviously, I cannot speak for the Liberal Democrats, who have been in favour of a referendum for a very long time, for slightly different reasons and rather more honourably than the Government, but I am sure that they would also like to see such a measure. If the Government do not accept my Bill, it will prove my point, which is that their desire for a referendum is nothing to do with seeking the public's decision.
	I do not know whether my neighbour, the Minister for Trade and Investment, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), can speak for the Prime Minister, but I ask him whether the Government are going to accept the result of the referendum. We do not know about that. The Prime Minister said yes in his news conference, but a hurried press release—no doubt it would have been drafted by one of these part-time Mandelson or Campbell figures—said "Oh no, that is not what we meant at all." There is a wonderful Brookes cartoon in today's edition of The Times; I recommend it to those who have not seen it. In the top left hand corner, under "2005", it has a big "No", along with "The plebs have spoken". After that, there are three pictures showing the Prime Minister rearranging the pieces of the "No" into a "Yes".
	That cartoon speaks volumes about what I suspect is going on. In respect of both the Danish and Irish people, we heard Governments say: "You've got the answer wrong guys, peasants; you don't understand this issue, but we in the Government understand it. Have another go and see if you can get it right next time; take another GCSE next year and see whether you can do a little better." That is what is going to happen, but I would prefer to hear the Government say that the referendum is a genuinely democratic move and that they will accept the result.
	What is happening in other EU countries? Of the 14 countries, I think that six are committed to holding referendums. France and Italy are consulting. I suspect that the Government's decision to hold a referendum will mean that we see one in France, and I do not suppose that that will earn the Prime Minister any brownie points with President Chirac. It was not so long ago that the Government's mission in Paris was lobbying the French Government not to hold a referendum, because if they held one, we would have had to do so. Now, the pass has been sold by the Prime Minister. No doubt, Mr. Chirac was not one of the two or three people whom the Prime Minister consulted on the U-turn, and I suspect that he is pretty upset about it. Nevertheless, I am sure that the result will be that the French will hold a referendum too, and there will also be referendums in several of the accession countries.
	The Laeken declaration, which set up the Convention, did not ask for a constitution at all. The issue was hijacked by the arch federalists—Dehaene, Giscard d'Estaing and Amato—and they produced a draft constitution pretty much before anybody knew what had happened. During the process, I spent a lot of time talking to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who was one of the representatives of the House of Commons on the Convention. Latterly, I talked to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who was the other representative, and read her pamphlet. They both said that the constitution was railroaded through the Convention. A small group of people decided what the text should say and pushed it through. There was no formal procedure enabling people to table amendments that would be voted on—they were simply ignored. Nobody would accuse the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston of being a Eurosceptic, but she said that even the sort of things that she was proposing were left to one side. She was on the politburo, or whatever it was called, that ran the Convention, but even she was unable to have any influence.
	What we have seen is a racket. The Euro-elite, which I long tried to kid myself did not exist and is really not very interested in what people think, see the constitution as a huge and wonderful way of extending their influence and power at an international level. That is given away by the incredibly pompous preamble—all about democracy and including quotes from Thucydides—to the Convention. I recommend it to anyone who wants a lesson in pomposity. It says:
	"Our Constitution . . . is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the greatest number."
	Well, we are about to find out.

Eric Forth: If my hon. Friend is in the mood, he might turn back a page and go to the preface, which is signed by three of the more pompous figures in Europe: Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, Giuliano Amato and Jean-Luc Dehaene. They are three of the perpetrators of this outrage. The amount of Euro-balls in the preface is similar to that in the preamble, which my hon. Friend just quoted, and he might consider sharing it with the House, if he feels in the mood.

John Maples: My right hon. Friend has done that for me.
	Another interesting piece of the preamble is where it says:
	"Convinced that, while remaining proud of their own national identities, the peoples of Europe are determined to transcend their ancient divisions and, united ever more closely, to forge a common destiny."
	That is what these three guys, and the people who go along with them, really think.
	I shall quote another telling piece, which may have escaped the attention of my right hon. Friend. Article 1, part of the treaty, refers to
	"Reflecting the will of the citizens and States of Europe to build a common future".
	How do we know that that represents the will of the people? The constitution was not an issue at the general election, or in the elections in any other European Union or accession country. The Government have now conceded that we will find out, but they have been fighting that for a long time. As I said, they resisted my ten-minute rule Bill, which was in almost exactly the same terms, three or four months ago. We need to find out the will of the people.
	The existence of that ambitious European elite is always denied by middle-of-the-road Europhiles, who say, "No, no, no. That's not the agenda. This treaty is more intergovernmental; it weakens the power of the Commission." We were told that at Maastricht, at Amsterdam and at Nice, and we are being told it about the constitution. I heard a couple of my hon. Friends say privately the other day that the constitution weakens the power of the Commission. How does it weaken the power of the Commission to give it a role in foreign policy and the whole of the home affairs pillar? How does it weaken its power to have the Foreign Minister, dual-hatted, in the Commission? It does not weaken its power at all.

Eric Forth: I am sticking with the preface, which says that the Convention
	"establishes the necessary measures to improve the structure and enhance the role of each of the Union's three institutions".
	There, again, one does not have to guess these people's motivation; it is there in black and white. In that sense they are transparent; they do not hide anything from us, but state, in black and white, what they want to do.

John Maples: I am sure that my right hon. Friend, like me, has an argument with, but no moral objection to, the people who espouse that cause. There is an argument for a united states of Europe, and there is an argument against it, which I will make during the course of my speech. What there is no argument for is pretending that the agenda does not exist, and that is what is happening.
	I return to my conversation with a couple of my hon. Friends who are, by my standards at any rate—and probably by the nation's standards—Europhiles. It was a private conversation, so I will not mention their names. One of them asked me, "What are you going to do at the next IGC?" I said, "Hang on a minute. This is not the end of the road." Once we've got the constitution, we'll have another IGC, perhaps in two or three years time, and there will be an attempt to erode the few things left in the treaty which stop it being the constitution of a united states of Europe. I will come on to the detail of what will have to be done to make this the constitution of a superstate. It is not that yet; I can see that, but it is jolly close. The establishment of full-scale qualified majority voting, the inclusion of powers for harmonising direct taxes and the removal of the veto on foreign and defence affairs would do it. They are big steps, and they are three of the Government's red lines, but we are getting very close to them.
	We are an awfully long way from 1956, when we signed the treaty of Rome. We lived with that, perfectly happily, for 29 years, until 1985, when we collectively decided—I was a Member of the House at that time, although, perhaps regrettably, it was not an issue to which I paid much attention—that a single market was a good idea and it needed additional powers for the European Union in the form of qualified majority voting. We were told that that would be confined to making the single market work, since when, under the Single European Act, we have had a raft of legislation about employment, health and safety and the environment. If one asked Lady Thatcher, who was Prime Minister at the time, about that, she would say—in fact, I think that she does in her memoirs—how seriously betrayed and misled she felt over undertakings that she was given at that time. It only took her one betrayal to wise up. Since then, we have had Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice: next, presumably, will be Dublin.
	It is time for those of us who do not share the agenda of a united states of Europe to wise up. The Treaty of Rome was purely a customs union, a free trade area and an attempt to ensure that business could develop. It flew the free market flag in a Europe that was not at that time much in favour of the free market. The treaty of 1985 took that a bit further, but was distorted by the way the powers contained in it were used. Maastricht took the big steps, including the treaty of the European Union, the setting up of the single currency and the social chapter. It had a pillar structure. Home affairs and foreign affairs remained intergovernmental—the Commission had no role in them at all. Nevertheless, the social chapter opt-out that we secured in Maastricht was bypassed. The working time directive was passed under health and safety provisions: a different legislative basis was used to bring it into effect because we would not be bound under the social chapter. That is an example of how such provisions are distorted.
	In Amsterdam we saw the partial collapse of the home affairs pillar and the extension of qualified majority voting. Nice is the least offensive of all the treaties, because we needed it to make provision for enlargement. When the Prime Minister sold the Nice treaty in this House—I had Front-Bench responsibility for foreign affairs at the time—he said that it was needed to make enlargement work. We were never told that we would need another intergovernmental conference, a constitution or a treaty to make it work. Not everybody was happy with the system of qualified majority voting and the nature of the Commission that came out of Nice, but nobody said at the time that another intergovernmental conference was needed. One is pocketed, then we are told two or three years later that we must have another one.

David Cairns: I recall the debate in this Chamber on the ratification of the treaty of Nice. It happened to be the debate in which I made my maiden speech, as history will recall. A series of Conservative Members said there should be a referendum on Nice. Now, the hon. Gentleman is saying that it was not that significant, but that was not the message from his Back Benchers at the time.

John Maples: One of the joys of being a Back Bencher is that one has only to speak for oneself, and on that basis I think that the treaty of Nice was the least offensive of all the treaties.
	Each of these treaties advances the process of ever closer union, and it will not stop advancing until we have a united states of Europe. A referendum is required at some point between the treaty of Rome and a federal superstate. One could argue that it should have been at Maastricht or at Nice, but we must have it some time. Such treaties provide an opportunity for a referendum to take place, because one can ask this very simple question: do we or do we not ratify it? We have not yet reached a superstate, but we are well on the way to it, and there has to be a referendum at some point. I suggest that now is the time.
	If the constitution is ratified and put into place, and the intergovernmental conference about which my hon. Friend told me in confidence takes place in 2008, what has to be done to move from what I foresee will be the treaty of Dublin to a federal superstate? The competences are pretty much complete—the only thing that is not in there is direct taxation. On QMV, there are few areas where the veto is still applicable, but they mainly relate to the Government's red line areas of tax, social security and foreign policy.
	It will be necessary for the European Court of Justice, and perhaps the supreme courts of one or two member states, to elevate the EU constitution over member states' constitutions. That is not the same as the supremacy of EU law. One of my fears about this being called a constitution is that courts may interpret it very differently from normal law that results from treaties.
	The only safeguard that we are left with is the ability to leave, which is a very crude weapon. I do not want to leave the European Union, because there are many things that we need to do together, especially in business and trade—for example, in negotiating with Japan and the United States. If we did that as individual countries in World Trade Organisation negotiations, we would get absolutely nowhere. It is tremendously important to perceive that we have many common interests. The history of Europe has been a history of warfare and the closer we are and the stronger our business and personal relationships, the better. I do not want to have to use the nuclear weapon of leaving as a way of preventing the European Union from doing things that we do not support.
	One can make an intellectually coherent case for a federal European superstate.

Mike O'Brien: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's argument. Earlier, he conceded that, if the Government's red lines on defence, social security and taxation were adhered to, a superstate would not be created. If we stick to the red lines and adopt a constitution that places limitations on the role of the EU, we must accept that the limitations would not exist without a constitution. The Conservative party position of not having a constitution at all would therefore be more likely to lead to some sort of European superstate than the adoption of a constitution with the red lines. Surely that would provide the limitations.

John Maples: My hon. neighbour and friend can do much better than that. The constitution advances the competences of the Union and qualified majority voting. There is currently a veto over foreign affairs and defence positions. Taxation is not even a competence. Some aspects of taxation could become the subject of qualified majority voting. The passerelle clause, or whatever one wants to call it, allows the Council of Ministers to institute qualified majority voting on other subjects. We are better off without the constitution, which considerably advances the federalist cause.
	There is a respectable case for a united states of Europe. I understand it and perhaps someone will make it in the debate. It contends that pooling our resources and our power in the modern world where there are giant superpowers such as China and the United States is the way forward. I have great respect for people who make that case openly. I have been on platforms with them and I especially remember a Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament who presented that respectable case openly.
	However, I believe that I am making a respectable case for saying that although we want close relations with other European countries and that we need institutionalised arrangements to deal with some common problems and issues, we do not want a constitution or to go any further in the direction of a federal superstate.
	There is no respectable argument for pretending that we are on the second track when we are on the first. The Government do that all the time.
	There is another good reason for holding a referendum at some stage in the process. Perhaps it should have happened when the Amsterdam or Maastricht treaties were considered, or during the passage of the Single European Act; perhaps the 2008 intergovernmental conference might be a good opportunity. The decision about whether we are wholeheartedly in the European Union fundamentally bedevils British policy making. Successive Governments have experienced that—it is not new to this Government and it was not a characteristic only of the previous Administration. Some Labour Members are worried about the advance of European federalism and some Conservative Members wholly support it. It is not a party issue but it bedevils policy making. That applies to defence in particular. The Prime Minister asserted that NATO was the only institution that had a defence role, subsequently signed up to the St. Malo agreement and then tried to extricate himself from holding two positions at once.
	Anyone who spoke to people in the United States State Department, as I did at that time, knew about all their work to unscramble the matter. I agree that it has largely been done and that the European defence capability has been effectively hauled back into NATO. However, in a giveaway action in November 1998, the Prime Minister signed the St. Malo agreement because we were not joining the euro the following year and he wanted to be at the top table at the next intergovernmental conference, then spent four years trying to row back from it. In the process, he upset all sorts of people, including the United States and Turkey, and European allies such as France and Germany, which wanted a European defence policy and now feel that the Prime Minister misled them.
	Until we settle the matter one way or another, it will continue to bedevil us. A referendum will settle it. Without it, the problem will continue. We want to co-operate on many issues where our interests are the same. We need institutional arrangements to effect that but our alliance with the United States is fundamentally important to our security. We have a worldwide outlook and interest that is shared in the European Union only by France—certainly nobody else. What is more, we have a history of successful institutions of government; no other member of the European Union or accession state does. The second world war was a complete constitutional disaster for all those countries. They either put in place fascist Governments or were defeated, and they all had to reinvent their institutions after 1945.
	For us, the second world war was the triumph of the nation state, the triumph of our institutions, the triumph of virtually uninterrupted parliamentary government for several hundred years. Why do we want to change that? I can understand why those other countries want to change. I can understand fully why countries such as Belgium, which do not have a strong national identity, countries that do not have much power and countries which are difficult to run as a unitary state because of large regional factors would want to be in this arrangement. I can understand why France and Germany want to tie each other down, although I can never understand why the Germans are prepared to play junior partner to the French the whole time. Nevertheless, I can understand their agendas. I cannot understand ours. We have very successful institutions of state. We have had a successful history as a nation state over many hundreds of years. Why do we want to abandon that?
	I want to spend a few minutes considering some of the provisions of the constitution. One of the things that bothers me about calling it a constitution is that that makes it more than just a treaty. Article 10 gives this away when it states:
	"The constitution, and law adopted by the Union's Institutions in exercising competences conferred on it, shall have primacy over the law of Member States."
	So far, we have had a series of decisions in the courts in Germany, France, Denmark and—sort of—here, which effectively say that European law takes primacy over domestic law, but it cannot take primacy over the constitutional arrangements of the country in question. In other words, the law that is made at European level must comply with the powers that were delegated to the EU in the various treaties in pursuance of the constitutional arrangements of the nation states. There are quite a lot of cases to illustrate that, and I shall come to them in a moment. A constitution would normally set itself above that, and I am concerned, given that phrase in article 10, that by calling it a constitution we should be implanting it as a constitution in the domestic law of member states and not simply as another intergovernmental treaty.
	It is worth pointing out that that supremacy covers everything. There are bits later in the treaty that exclude elements of the common foreign policy, for example, from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, but that supremacy includes the common foreign policy and the charter of fundamental rights, and I believe that there is a danger that if we implant a constitution in domestic law it might eventually be seen to be superior to that law, perhaps not here but in other countries. That is something that the European Court of Justice will try to achieve, because it is a very constructivist court. We have seen how, given a little power and a bit of a gateway, it advances that idea. That is what the supreme courts of all federal states do. The United States was effectively built by Supreme Court decisions.
	Case law in several European countries illustrates the point that I have just made. The supremacy of law does not extend to supremacy over the constitutional arrangements. I shall quote from rather a good pamphlet by Martin Howe QC, who is something of an expert on these matters. He is a European lawyer, practising in the European courts. He says that the European Court has argued that
	"Community law is even supreme over the constitutional laws of the Member States."
	I should like to quote from the Handelsgesellschaft case, which was probably the most famous ECJ case on this matter:
	"The law stemming from the Treaty, an independent source of law, cannot because of its very nature be overridden by the rules of national law, however framed"—
	I think that most of us would accept that that is the position—
	" . . . therefore the validity of a Community measure or its effect within a Member State remains unimpaired even if it is alleged that it runs counter to either fundamental rights as formulated by the Constitution of that State or the principles of a national constitutional structure."
	The German constitutional court gave that short shrift in the Maastricht case, stating that, if international conventions impose binding obligations on Germany
	"which require internal implementation in a way which would infringe guaranteed constitutional rights, then the measures providing for internal implementation are 'subject to review in full by German courts. In this respect the protection of basic rights provided by the Constitution is not displaced by supra-national law that could claim precedence.'"
	The judgment in that case continues:
	"the resultant legislative instruments would not be legally binding within the sphere of German sovereignty. The German state organs would be prevented for constitutional reasons from applying them in Germany. The Federal Constitutional Court will review legal instruments of European institutions and agencies to see whether they remain within the limits of the sovereign rights conferred on them or transgress them."
	In France, there has been a similar case in the Court de Cassation, which is the supreme court.
	In the so-called "metric martyrs" case here, Lord Justice Laws reiterated the position that there is nothing that the European Union could do that would take away Parliament's right to change the law—in other words, to repeal the European Communities Act 1972, or for that matter any other law, even if it put us in breach of the treaty. However, counsel for a United Kingdom public authority—admittedly, it was only Sunderland borough council—argued that Parliament could not do that.
	Here we have a lawyer for a United Kingdom public authority arguing that the British Parliament cannot repeal EU legislation, or cannot repeal the foundations of such legislation. What concerns me is that we are in danger of moving much further in that direction by calling this measure a constitution, and that the European Court of Justice will certainly suggest that it can override domestic constitutional arrangements—it has done so already, and article I-10 will give it far greater power and reason to do it.
	I suggest to hon. Members that a constitution is conceptually different from other law, although it is difficult for us to understand that because we do not have a written constitution. Law is made pursuant to a constitution while a constitution is an organic measure. From it, other things flow. I am concerned that, by calling this measure a constitution as opposed to just another treaty that changes the powers. In one way or another, we are opening the way for courts in member states—and perhaps, eventually, even in our own country—to do just that.

Andrew Dismore: I want to raise with the hon. Gentleman his definition of a constitution, and to put to him the mirror image of that point, which is that a constitution also circumscribes what laws can be passed by member states.

John Maples: Of course it does. We do not have that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are few limits on the powers of Parliament to do things, but my point is this: why should our legal arrangements be subject to being overruled by the European Court of Justice? If we are to have a written constitution, let us have a British supreme court with those powers, as is the case in the United States.
	It is worth recalling that on 20 December 1860 a constitutional convention in the state of—

David Cairns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Maples: I have been interrupted as I was about to make a rather nice point, but I give way.

David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman has been given the chance to start his point again from the beginning. He advocates a British supreme court—or perhaps he is saying that that would be preferable to having the European constitution. As a first step towards that, will he support the Government's proposal for a supreme court in this country?

John Maples: What the Government propose is not a supreme court in the sense of a constitutional court, but simply renaming the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords the supreme court. I think that that is a mistake, because it implies that it will have the powers of a supreme court. The Lord Chief Justice said that we are exchanging an extremely good court of final appeal for a poor man's supreme court. Government policy in that respect is a mistake. A supreme court where there is a written constitution is an entirely different matter from something that is called a supreme court where there is not.
	I quote for the House an 1860 constitutional convention in South Carolina, unanimously passed:
	"That the Ordinance adopted by us in Convention on 23rd May 1788, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also, all Acts and parts of Acts of the General Assembly of this State, ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, known as the United States of America, is hereby dissolved."
	As we all know, the US federal authorities took a different view of that matter.

David Cairns: As did the rest of the world.

John Maples: It does not matter what the rest of the world thought about the United States civil war; the question was what the US federal authorities thought.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that if they want to intervene they must rise in their place in the normal manner.

John Maples: As I was saying, we all know where those matters led.
	People will say, "This is incredibly far fetched. We are talking about Europe in the 21st century. People aren't going to fight each other again." I am sure that people said the same thing at the 1788 constitutional convention in Philadelphia. I do not suggest that anyone will attack us, but I suspect that if a small European country tried to go its own way, very heavy pressure would be put on it not to do so. We have seen the pressure that was put on Ireland to sign up to the Nice treaty. That was kids' stuff compared with what could happen.
	My first substantive point to the Government, which I reach shortly after starting, is that article I-14 needs to be clarified to make it clear that while we call this a constitution, it is not a constitution in the sense of creating an organic law. It is simply another inter-governmental treaty that changes the arrangements for managing the European Union. I do not particularly care what it is called, although I would prefer that it was not called a constitution, but that bit in article I-10 that says that the constitution will have precedence over member states' laws, and, as an afterthought, the laws that are passed under it, is dangerous.

Mike O'Brien: I was bemused by the hon. Gentleman's references to the American civil war, and was moved to suggest that he looks up the Lincoln-Douglas debates. These issues in American history were far more complex than he suggests, and in terms of drawing analogies, his point verges on being utterly ridiculous.

John Maples: I am sure that if somebody in South Carolina had made that point in Philadelphia in 1788, James Madison, Samuel Adams or somebody else would have made exactly the point that the Minister has made. Seventy-two years later, however, the issue became slightly different. As he has jogged my memory about the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln's quote about Douglas,
	"I will promise to stop telling the truth about him if he will stop telling lies about me"
	seems very apposite to the way in which the Government handle these issues, because they lie about them. They do not tell the truth about what they are doing, why they are doing it, and what the consequences are.

Christopher Chope: Does my hon. Friend agree that one example of that was the Prime Minister's answer in Prime Minister's questions the other day, when he implied that the whole of the common fisheries policy would still be an issue of shared competence, when we know that part of the common fisheries policy, under this constitution, would be under the exclusive competence of the Commission?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to choose his words carefully. The words that he just used were in a general sense. I am sure that he would not want to refer to anybody in particular.

John Maples: They were carefully chosen, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Is the European Union a state or not? I believe that it is getting close, but it is not a state yet. The most commonly accepted definition in international law of a state, however, is contained in the Montevideo convention, which strictly applies only to the American hemisphere. Nevertheless, it gives four characteristics for being considered a state:
	"the state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications . . . a permanent population"
	which Europe has, "a defined territory", which we have, "government", to which we are getting very close, and crucially,
	"capacity to enter into relations with the other states",
	which is what this treaty gives. It gives that to the whole Union, not just the Community—previously, the Community, for the purposes of trade issues, had legal personality, but the Union as a whole did not. By giving it that legal personality, and the exclusive right to enter into treaties, certainly, by the Montevideo convention definition, we are coming very close to being a state.
	I have talked about tax, social security and foreign policy remaining at least partly inter-governmental. The erosion of the veto in those areas, however, would end it. The constitution involves the Commission in those areas in a way in which it has not been involved previously. All that is needed is an erosion of those qualified majority voting provisions, which can come through article 24 by a so-called passerelle clause without further reference to this Parliament or an inter-governmental conference—the inter-governmental conference in 2008 will not be needed to do it. I think I am right that the Council of Ministers can give up its veto and introduce qualified majority voting in any area in which it wishes to do so.
	I suspect that were we sitting our GCSE politics exams and being asked to list the characteristics of a state, we would come pretty close to an A* if we wrote down that it has a Parliament, a President, a constitution, a Foreign Minister, a supreme court, a bill of rights, a central bank, a common foreign and security policy, military capability, a public prosecutor, a currency, a police force, supremacy of federal law over state law, treaty-making powers, legal personality and citizenship. That is not an exhaustive list, but any 16-year-old would get an A* for listing those in answer to what constitutes a state. The fact is that a huge number of the characteristics that, to most people, imply a state, are there. A great many of those that I have listed—nine of the 16—are in the constitution. Nine of those 16 do not currently exist. We do not have a president, we do not have a constitution, we do not have a Foreign Minister, we do not have a Bill of Rights—only an annexe to the Nice treaty—and we do not have a public prosecutor. Federal law is not supreme. It does not have treaty-making powers in all areas. It does not have legal personality. All those things stem from the constitution. We are taking a huge step down that road.
	I think it is crucial for common foreign and security policy to remain inter-governmental. The Government have said that that is one of their red lines; but they have agreed to the collapse of the pillar. Under the Maastricht treaty, pillar two—I think; I also get two and three mixed up—remained inter-governmental. Now it is collapsing. The European Union is getting a Foreign Minister. It has not had one so far; it has had a high representative of the Council. I am a great fan of Mr. Solana, who does a very worthwhile job extremely well, but he will now be called the Foreign Minister—and he will have two hats: he will also be a Vice-President of the Commission. The Commission is securing an involvement in foreign affairs that it has not had before, which is an important departure.
	Article 39.5 in part I of the treaty says, in regard to common foreign and security policy,
	"Before undertaking any action on the international scene or any commitment which could affect the Union's interests, each Member State shall consult the others within the European Council or the Council of Ministers."
	That applies to virtually any international action we might wish to take. It means that we must tell those others what we are going to do, or thinking about doing; we must share our analysis with them, and share the issue with them as it affects the United Kingdom. It is a very wide provision. Article 201 contains a let-out proviso, which says that if we think that vital issues of national policy are at stake we can insist that a vote is not taken. Perhaps we, France or Germany could do that, but I think it would be very difficult for any other country to exercise the power. It is like nuclear weapons again: it is like threatening to withdraw.
	The European Court of Justice is excluded from articles 39 and 40, but not from the whole common foreign and security policy. It is not, for instance, excluded from article 15, which states:
	"Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity . . . They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to impair its effectiveness."
	That means that although they could not interfere under articles 39 or 40 with decisions on the common foreign and security policy, the European Court of Justice will have an overview of how member states behave in relation to it. Article 282, which concerns the imposition of economic sanctions, gives the European Court of Justice oversight of that as well, and I am sure that there are other examples.
	There are two big gateways allowing the Court a role in foreign policy decisions. If the Government are really going to draw their red lines around the common foreign and security policy, which I believe they want to do, they must tighten up those arrangements considerably. The European Court of Justice does not need very big gateways; the gate needs to be open by just a fraction of a millimetre, and a couple of cases later it will be through. The Government would be well advised to make sure that the gate is firmly closed, and that there is no way in which the European Court of Justice can secure any role whatever in reviewing this country's foreign policy decisions.
	Home affairs is now fully under pillar one. It was under pillar three, I think. We gave up part of that at Amsterdam, when immigration and asylum were given a role. We have now gone the whole hog, and home affairs has been sold out to the Commission. That is clear from page 89 of the treaty, which states that the Union
	"shall ensure the absence of internal border controls for persons and shall frame a common policy on asylum, immigration and external border control, based on solidarity"—
	whatever "solidarity" means.
	The home affairs pillar goes very much further than that. Article 170 confers a great deal of power over the harmonisation of civil law. Article 171 deals with criminal law. Article 175 deals with police capabilities, and article 176 establishes a public prosecutor. Those are characteristics of a state. We are giving the European Union enormous powers to take action in areas that we have hitherto considered to be the exclusive preserve of domestic law. That is one huge area in which we have given up power. Those who say that the treaty makes no difference should look at that section and at what has happened to the home affairs pillar, which has remained intergovernmental before.
	May I make one technical point to the Minister, to which he may like to reply now or, if not, write to me about? What has happened to the Schengen opt-out? A protocol to the Amsterdam treaty gave us an opt-out from the Schengen arrangements. That protocol is not repeated in the treaty. I should be grateful if he would take that matter on board. He does not need to listen to the whole of my speech, but I should be grateful if he would listen to one or two points to which I shall draw his attention. This constitutional treaty repeals the Amsterdam treaty. The protocol is not repeated in it. The same point applies to our opt-out on the euro in a protocol to the Maastricht treaty. When Maastricht and Amsterdam are repealed, any halfway-good lawyer will be able to argue that the protocols have gone too, because there will be no treaty on which they are based. Where, then, do our opt-outs on Schengen and the single currency survive in the new treaty? I hope that the Minister can satisfy me on that point, either now or at some later time.
	Anyone who reads the charter of fundamental rights can see that it is not a Bill of Rights in the sense that most of us would understand our Bill of Rights or that of the United States. It is a list of political aspirations. They are pretty good political aspirations and I do not argue against them, but they are very vague. Again, we are leaving the door open to the European Court of Justice running roughshod all over our domestic law.
	Let me give an example. Article II.50 on fundamental rights says:
	"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted within the Union in accordance with the law."
	We have recently passed—or at least if not passed, the Government have proposed—measures providing that the double jeopardy rule be set aside in the case of compelling new evidence. The European convention on human rights, from which this was drawn, contains that proviso, but it is not in the charter of fundamental rights. If we were to agree this, we would be unable to do as we want—I do not particularly want to do it, but the Government do—which is to say that people can be tried again if compelling new evidence comes to light. That is just one example of how that measure will be stretched.
	If people do not think that this is the sort of thing the European Court of Justice does, it is worth reflecting on what happened with the equal treatment directive, which I think was adopted in 1978—quite a long time ago. It was designed to give equal treatment to men and women, and it has resulted in the European Court of Justice saying that Germany must include women among its tank crews in front-line units. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) knows more about this than me. One may or may not think that having women in front-line tank units is a good idea. I think that this Parliament should be free to decide that, but the European Court of Justice has built on the equal rights and equal treatment provision. That is how far it has got. That is why I say that, if we leave a chink open to it, it is through it.
	The Government think that the "horizontal clauses" that they have had put in will protect them against that, but they are very weak and clumsily drafted. The treaty says that the charter is confined to EU institutions and EU law, but EU law now includes almost everything. Of course, EU law includes the European Court of Justice. Whatever the European Court of Justice does, it is by implication EU law. Let us consider some of the gateways in the constitution through which it may go. It is worth reflecting that the United States Supreme Court got whole rafts of stuff in place using the equal protection amendment. Those things exist in the constitution. Article III.7 prohibits discrimination on the ground of nationality, while article III.8 permits measures to combat discrimination on the grounds of sex, racial or ethnic origin. All that people have to be able to do is hang it on that. If they can show that they are being discriminated against on the ground of nationality, they get the right in one country but not in another. It therefore seems that the ECJ will find a way of getting through.
	Let us take the health article, which says that everyone has the right to access preventive health care and to benefit from medical treatment under the conditions established by national laws and practices. The Government say that the conditions established by national laws and practices safeguard us from the European Court of Justice telling Britain what preventive health arrangements we must have. If that is the case, the whole paragraph is completely unnecessary and meaningless. It does nothing; it does not create an additional right. If it does not create a right over and above what we have under national law, why is it there at all?
	If I were sitting as a judge in a supreme court, I could say that the intention manifestly must have been to give some superior rights to what were being given under national law, otherwise there would have been no point putting the provision in the charter or the declaration of fundamental rights. When we have a constructivist court such as the European Court of Justice, it will be through there in a flash.
	Another issue on which the Government will run into trouble is their quite tough proposals for asylum seekers. I am not arguing the merits or otherwise of withdrawing the social security benefits from asylum seekers, but I very much doubt that the Government will be able to do so once the constitution is in place. The first chapter of the declaration of fundamental rights is pretty all encompassing. It states:
	"Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected."
	One does not have to be a very clever judge to hang on to that almost anything that one wants in respect of how human beings are treated, particularly if it is alleged that they are being treated badly.
	On employment law, the issue of collective bargaining rights may be dear to some Members' hearts. Article 28 confers rights to take collective action, including strike action. There is no limit on that in the charter but, under our law, there are serious limitations on the right to take strike action. The ECJ, and not Parliament, will have the ultimate power to decide whether restrictions on strike action or collective bargaining should be allowed in circumstances that might have a vital effect on national security. GCHQ is an example. However, we place many more restrictions on strikes. There must be ballots and cooling-off periods, and certain things have to happen first. There are also certain industries in which strikes cannot take place. We will also find it difficult to maintain the conditionality of the working time directive whereby people can contract out or a number of occupations are exempt.
	The charter of fundamental rights is really dangerous. The Government resisted it for a long time. They did not want it in the Nice treaty or in an annexe, but they got it in an annexe. Now they have it in the constitution, so why do they not just say "No"? The charter is not fundamental to the constitution; it is a political agenda to which most of us at a political level could subscribe. We would not argue with much of it in an election campaign. Why do we not just exclude it from the treaty? Why does the Prime Minister not simply go back to Dublin and say, "Listen guys. I've got to have a referendum and they are never going to agree to this. Take it out. It does not make the constitution less effective in terms of making the EU's institutions function. We never wanted it in the Nice treaty even as an annexe in the first place"? This is an illustration of the Government's appallingly weak negotiating abilities. They make pre-emptive concessions just because they want to feel good in Europe. They think that they are at the top table and they want to sit alongside Mr. Schröder and Chirac at dinners. If the Government do not like the provision, they should just say that they will not have it. They have a veto. However, once the provision is in the constitution, the gateway will be open and they will regret that at leisure.
	The Prime Minister has told us that we have raised a completely false scare about energy. However, page 89 of the draft treaty states:
	"In establishing an internal market"—
	which means qualified majority voting—
	"and with regard for the need to preserve and improve the environment, Union policy on energy shall aim to:
	(a) ensure the functioning of the energy market,
	(b) ensure security of energy supply  . . . and
	(c) promote energy efficiency".
	That is pretty all encompassing and it means that, when the Union has acted, we cannot. Does that cover nuclear power generation? Will we be subject to Union rules about our nuclear power stations of which we still have quite a lot?
	What about our treaty over North sea oil with Norway? Under the constitution, we cannot make treaties with other countries in areas where the Union is empowered to make them. We have treaties with Norway over North sea oil and gas. Will they go out of the window? We cannot make any third-party agreements. Therefore, it is true that we are opening up an area of our energy policy. I think that we are the only country in the EU that has oil and gas—Holland may have some access, but only to the gas fields—but we are surrendering that policy to the Union. We were one of the only countries in Europe that had a decent fishing industry, but we gave control of that away. Why do we give such things away? Why do not we say that energy is a matter of particular concern to us and that we want unanimity on it or its exclusion from the treaty altogether?
	I mentioned to the Minister how the protocol on the euro in the Maastricht treaty will be extended. Article 14 of the draft constitution gives the Union complete competence over economic policy:
	"The Union shall adopt measures to ensure coordination of the economic policies of the Member States . . . The Member States shall coordinate their economic policies with the Union . . . The Union shall adopt measures to ensure coordination of the employment policies of the Member States . . . The Union may adopt initiatives to ensure coordination of Member States' social policies."
	Frankly, I do not know what is left. Outside foreign policy and defence, there is little that Parliament or the Government do that does not come within that definition. Not only economic policy, but employment and social policy are being opened up.
	I should be grateful if the Minister would reply to this particular point. Article 53(4) addresses the Union's resources and qualified majority voting:
	"A European law of the Council shall lay down the modalities relating to the Union's resources."
	I am concerned that our rebate may have gone to qualified majority voting. If the Minister cannot reply today, I should be grateful if he would confirm that that point is covered in some other way—I cannot pretend to have read every word of the treaty. Our rebate is worth a lot of money—some £2 billion a year—and it is tremendously important that any change requires unanimity and cannot be done under qualified majority voting.
	My final specific point on the treaty concerns tax. Article III-62 contains the power to harmonise indirect taxes by a unanimous vote, although it reduces that condition to qualified majority voting in
	"combating tax fraud and tax evasion.".
	The same is true of company taxation, which can also operate by qualified majority voting on tax fraud and tax evasion. I used to be a tax lawyer, and one can hang an awful lot around tax evasion and tax fraud. One man's definition of tax evasion is not another's definition of tax evasion—the European savings directive is all about what the Union calls tax evasion. We are opening a big gateway for the European Union.
	Finally, I shall examine the consequences of a refusal to ratify the draft constitution. We are being sold all sorts of scare stories that a refusal to ratify would be a disaster. If we refuse to ratify the treaty, as far as the European Union's organisational and institutional arrangements are concerned, we will end up where we are now—at the end of the Nice treaty—and there is no need to do anything else. The European Union functions reasonably satisfactorily, and it functioned satisfactorily before the Nice treaty, too.
	The other countries of Europe cannot go ahead without us. They can use the enhanced co-operation provisions of the existing Maastricht treaty, but they cannot tear up the existing treaties and sign this constitution. There is no provision for them to leave the European Union, to renounce the treaty establishing the European Community or to renounce the treaty establishing the European Union. If they did so, it would be a clear breach of those treaties, and they could not inherit the European Union institutions—effectively, they cannot leave. If we, or any other country, veto the draft constitution, we will be where we are now, which is a perfectly acceptable status quo. The scare stories about the consequences of not ratifying the treaty are simply not true. On other European countries renouncing the Maastricht treaty, it is also worth bearing it in mind that the Maastricht treaty is the basis for the euro, and that the 11 countries that have the euro do not want to scrap it.
	The ultimate protection is the right to leave, which was one of my red lines, which I discussed earlier. The right to leave requires a leaver's agreement, and the arrangements that reduce that right to qualified majority voting are not entirely satisfactory. If such an agreement cannot be obtained within two years, the constitution ceases to apply to the member who wants to leave, and such arrangements should be more even-handed.
	The treaty moves things along in several fundamental areas, and it is not only a tidying-up exercise. It opens gateways for interference by the European Court of Justice in all sorts of areas in which it should not be involved, including foreign and security policy. Finally, the danger of creating a European constitution is that we create a different kind of law within the EU. I believe that that is what it would do in its present form, although that could be dealt with fairly easily by amending article I-10.
	The former right hon. Member for Chesterfield used to say that the two fundamental characteristics of a democracy are that the voters can throw out the Government and the Government can change the law. If voters do not like the way in which the Government are behaving, they can throw them out. The electors threw out the Conservatives in 1997, but when they throw the Labour party out of government—next year, we hope, but it will happen at some point—they will not be electing a Government who can change laws made pursuant to the European treaties. We are agreeing to delegate Parliament's power to make legislation to a group of people who cannot in any circumstances be controlled by the British electorate.
	Let us take an example of an action taken domestically—that the Bank of England should set interest rates. A new Government could change that, perhaps even without legislation being passed, but certainly with it. Parliament could change that law. However, the House cannot change laws, regulations and directives—or framework laws, as they will be known in future—introduced by the European Union. There is a fundamental question of democratic accountability to be addressed: such accountability does not and will not exist. As elected politicians, we all share the view that those in opposition can hope that, one day, the voters will throw out the Government and they will be able to put right all the awful and stupid things that that Government did. There are fewer and fewer things that we can put right, and once the treaty is in place there will be very few indeed.
	I welcome wholeheartedly the Government's conversion to holding to a referendum, but I believe that they are making a terrible mistake in leaving it until after the next election. First, that will enable people like me to traduce their motives. Secondly, and more important, it will leave outstanding an issue that has bedevilled British politics for two generations and will continue to do so until it is settled. I shall accept the results of the referendum. If the answer is "yes", it is clear to me what direction a chunk of British policy will take in future. I believe that, however much jiggery-pokery and gerrymandering they try, the Government will have to accept a no vote, and it will also be clear in that case where things go from there. I believe that the sooner the question is settled in a referendum, the better for all of us.

David Cairns: I begin, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by wishing you and all hon. Members a happy St. George's day. I have been going out of my way to say that to as many of my English colleagues as possible, to which their response is to look at me bizarrely. They are swift to complain when people celebrate St. Patrick's day or St. Andrew's day, but when one tries to generate support for St. George's day, no one seems to reciprocate.

Eric Forth: Thank you.

David Cairns: The right hon. Gentleman is a Scottish exile, but he is the only one to have reciprocated when I mention St. George's day. I thought that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) might have made some sort of reference to it—perhaps in connection with slaying the mighty Euro-dragons that he paraded before us. However, they were inflatable dragons, which he had to blow up himself in order to slay them during the course of his speech.

Andrew Dismore: Without wishing to derail my hon. Friend's peroration about St. George, it is important to point out that St. George is the patron saint not only of England, but of several European nations.

David Cairns: Indeed, he is a great European figure, even though I believe he originated in Palestine. Anyway, happy St. George's day and happy birthday to my brother, too—

Andrew Dismore: And Shakespeare.

David Cairns: Indeed.
	In the course of my speech, I shall do something that the hon. Member for Stratford-on- Avon did not do in the one hour and 10 minutes that he spoke, which is address the Bill. I stand to be corrected, but I never heard him do so: he spent the whole time speaking about the draft constitution. I shall mention that, too. He presented it as axiomatic that those who support a referendum—as we all do—must support his Bill; but as one who is profoundly attached to the idea of a referendum, I cannot support his Bill, because it is deeply flawed. I shall go through it, even though the duration of his speech might mean—I do not presume to know the will of the House in advance—that we do not have time today to commit his Bill to Committee.

John Maples: And that is the end of it.

David Cairns: As the hon. Gentleman says, that will be the end of it. The Bill may never reach Committee. I do not want the record to show that I voted against the Bill, if given an opportunity, because I am against the idea of a referendum. I would vote against it because I am against the Bill, which is profoundly flawed. It is not in the interests of democracy to pass a Bill that contains such profound flaws, which I shall detail in the course of my speech. Those of us who believe that the British public have a right to have final say on the matter, and that they should be consulted as a result of the constitutional treaty negotiations, do not think the Bill is the mechanism by which to deliver that.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon on securing a place so high in the ballot for private Members' Bills. Last year I came second in the ballot and succeeded in getting my own private Member's Bill, a much smaller and more modest measure, on to the statute book. It came into force a fortnight ago today, so I know how exciting it is to pilot a private Member's Bill.

Andrew Dismore: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Cairns: I happily give way to another champion of private Members' business.

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are here today to legislate—to try to get Bills through the House. Perhaps we will be able to vote on the Bill today; perhaps we will not. If the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) was serious about trying to achieve a referendum on the basis of his Bill, he would have not have spent so much time arguing about it himself. He would have allowed a proper debate to take place in the House with all hon. Members present contributing, which would have given it a better chance of being debated, rather than talked out. That is inevitable, given the short time left to debate the Bill.

David Cairns: I am, sadly, forced to agree with my hon. Friend. I expect the headline on the press releases has already been written—"Government talk out Euro referendum Bill"—and that there will be yet more confusion, not just the alleged confusion that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon spoke about at great length at the beginning. I do not know what will happen. We might draw matters to a conclusion and have a vote, with the Bill going into Committee.

Eric Forth: Since we are in a relaxed conversational Friday mood, I remind the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) spent an hour introducing his Bill, which, sadly, fell as a result of a pathetic lack of support, so the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) made an excellent speech setting out his views for about the same length of time is not exceptional. It is almost normal for a Friday.

David Cairns: I posit one distinction. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) referred to his Bill during his speech. The record will show that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon made almost no reference to his Bill. He spoke at enormous length about the constitution, which is obviously at the heart of the matter, but he hardly referred to his own Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle talked us through his Bill and explained the effect of the various clauses. He took a considerable time to do that. I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. Unlike the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I was present for the entirety of his hon. Friend's very good speech. The right hon. Gentleman flitted in and out of the Chamber.

Eric Forth: I distinctly remember my hon. Friend referring explicitly to clause 1(2), saying that although the Government now happily supported the thrust of most of his Bill, that element might be more contentious. That is one example of a reference that my hon. Friend made to his Bill. Perhaps he did not have to go into quite as much detail as usual because, as he pointed out, the Bill is in all other respects Government policy.

David Cairns: What the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon did not do when he spoke to clause 1(2) was explain what he meant by "adoption" of the treaty.

John Maples: rose—

David Cairns: If the hon. Gentleman did explain that, I apologise. If he wishes to clarify the matter, I am happy to give way.

John Maples: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as I did speak for a long time. I specifically said that "adoption" is a term of art meaning that when the treaty is agreed at the intergovernmental conference, it is usually signed two or three weeks later when the text is finalised. The hon. Gentleman is being unfair on me. I did speak about my Bill but, as it is Government policy, there did not seem to be much on which the Minister and I differed.

David Cairns: "Adoption", as the hon. Gentleman knows, is not the normal word used in the present context. It needs clarification, and I intended to ask him to provide such clarification, should his Bill go into Committee. It may be a matter of weeks between the intergovernmental conference and the signing of the treaty, but, on an issue of such magnitude, there could be many months between it being agreed and it being signed. Merely to talk about adoption without specifying that further is one of the many flaws in the Bill, which means that regrettably, although I support a referendum, I am unable to support the Bill today.

Andrew Dismore: The only part of the Bill to which I recall the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) referring was the referendum question itself, which of course goes to the heart of it, but he simply said that if we do not like the question it can be changed in Committee. If the heart of the Bill is the referendum question, does not that simply show that the hon. Gentleman has no real intention of taking the Bill forward, but is simply playing with the House's time?

David Cairns: Yes, and one cannot condone such an infantile approach to making laws as simply speaking for the sake of speaking. My hon. Friend tempts me to pre-empt my own speech because I want to speak at some length on the question. He is right to say that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon spoke about the question, but he did so only because I asked him about it. I intervened on him twice to clarify the matter and he conceded immediately that the question could be amended in Committee. How often do we hear Opposition spokesmen and spokeswomen condemning the Government for introducing amendments in Committee?
	At the moment I am serving on the Committee considering the Pensions Bill—a magnificent measure representing real social progress—but because of its technical nature the Government have had to introduce a large number of amendments, and every amendment that we introduce is heralded by Conservative spokespeople whingeing about the fact that we are introducing amendments that should have been on the face of the Bill so that they could have been properly scrutinised on Second Reading.
	Yet here we have the hon. Gentleman saying that if we do not like the referendum question, which is at the heart of this Bill, it can be amended in Committee. That approach is entirely unsatisfactory. As far as possible, Bills should be accurately drafted in time for Second Reading so that hon. Members can scrutinise them, not send them off to a Room Upstairs for debate. Again, that is part of the flawed nature of the Bill.

Andrew Dismore: Would it not be far better for the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) simply to withdraw the Bill, get it in order and perhaps try to secure a further ten-minute rule slot? In Committee on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, I remember the Opposition jumping up and down and protesting about changes to the very nature of the Bill, which meant that it had to be withdrawn, redrafted and have a second Committee stage. Would it not be far better for the hon. Gentleman simply to withdraw the Bill and start again?

David Cairns: I fear that my hon. Friend is correct, and I have mentioned only two of the flaws; I have yet to reach the meat of the Bill. It has many other flaws.
	Walking towards King's Cross tube station coming into the House today, I saw a huge poster saying "Kill Bill". I thought that the Labour Whips had generated such a magnificent operation that every Member of Parliament making their way to the Commons today would get the message to kill the Bill. However, I have been told by those more culturally aware than I am that it is the name of a film. It is not my intention to kill the Bill, but to vote against it because of its flawed nature.
	The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon tries to make his case by attacking the constitution, on some elements of which I would agree, and inventing other reasons for attacking the constitution and for voting no, irrespective of what is in the treaty. His case was about as credible as Kevin Spacey. [Interruption.] At least my references are contemporary. At Prime Minister's questions this week the Leader of the Opposition referred to the words "Help me, Rhondda. Help, help me Rhondda." I had to have that explained to me because I am far too young to know what he was talking about. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is an Elvis Presley fan and a Beach Boys fan, too. I did not know that song and I had to have the reference explained to me, as did other youngsters here.

Mark Lazarowicz: As my hon. Friend rightly points out, the Bill needs detailed scrutiny—it affects the whole of the United Kingdom. More than half the Government Members present represent Scottish constituencies, and I see that the Liberal Democrats are represented 100 per cent. by Members from Scottish constituencies. What does my hon. Friend say about the absence from the Chamber of any Scottish National party Members, who advocate a referendum in Scotland but are not here today—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not only is that a very long intervention, but it is totally irrelevant to the debate.

David Cairns: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course I shall not stray down that path, other than to say that the Bill that was considered earlier would also apply throughout the United Kingdom, as would the Bill that is scheduled to be debated after this one. Three United Kingdom-wide Bills have been scheduled for debate this morning, so my hon. Friend has made his point very well.

Andrew Dismore: Would my hon. Friend care to explain the example that he cited earlier, for the benefit of those who did not understand it? I congratulate him on making a contemporary reference, when the best references that we heard from the Opposition were to 1860 and the American civil war.

David Cairns: Now my hon. Friend really is pre-empting my speech, as I have some thoughts about the civil war. I might not be a great constitutional expert, but I happen to know a wee bit about the American civil war and the experiences that led up to the secession of the south. That period is directly relevant to our discussion. Indeed, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon spoke about it at length, and he will be delighted to hear that I will say more about it anon.
	The first flaws in the Bill have already been mentioned in passing, but they require further reflection. Clause 1(2) states:
	"A referendum shall be held within six months of the adoption of the Treaty."
	We are entitled to ask what adoption of the treaty means. The term "adoption" is not common in respect of European treaties, which are not spoken of as adopted. They can be agreed, ratified, signed and endorsed by Parliament, but not adopted. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon is therefore including in the Bill a brand-new term. It might be the correct term and precisely the one that we need in this case, but we would need to examine the implications for future treaties and consequent Acts of introducing that new legal term into the corpus of our domestic law. He admitted that the term is not commonly used in this context and had to define it, and it would be unwise to proceed with the Bill while it remains. He might say "Okay, we'll amend the Bill in Committee", but that brings me back to my original point: it is not acceptable to bring a Bill to the House for its Second Reading having had quite a while to prepare it, and then immediately say that we can amend it in Committee. That is not a good way of making laws. If we had 5p for every time we heard the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst make precisely that point—I am indebted to him for drawing it to my attention—we would all be considerably better off.

John Maples: I explained what the word "adoption" means. It is a term of art and I checked it with the Clerks. Furthermore, this Bill is, word for word, exactly the Bill that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) introduced in the previous Session. I shall draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Hansard and to the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the drafting.

David Cairns: I have enormous respect and admiration for my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), but there are many things on which I firmly disagree with him. If he were present, I would tell him so to his face, but perhaps he is visiting a school or something. As he is not present, I do not think that we should discuss his views in any great depth.

Andrew Dismore: Perhaps the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) would like the House to start adopting Bills. In the context of his own Bill, perhaps he is asking us to take on a somewhat unwanted orphan. Perhaps that is what he means by "adoption".

David Cairns: That may well be the case, which illustrates the problem: as the term is not usually used in such a context, it is open to various interpretations. Frankly, such a situation is not good enough when we are passing laws. We will not adopt the Bill, foster it or take it into care; we will vote either for it or against it on the basis of what it contains. Such loose language is not acceptable, which is why the Bill should not be given its Second Reading.

Meg Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I apologise for being away from the Chamber while I gave in to the temptation to have a bit of lunch.
	The Bill says that a referendum should be held "within six months", and a great deal was made of the need to proceed swiftly. Does my hon. Friend have views about how soon after a treaty is adopted or ratified, or whatever the correct term is, we could try to hold a referendum?

David Cairns: It is not so much how many months, but whether the Bill can be given adequate parliamentary scrutiny. That is what is at stake, not whether we set up an artificial guillotine or time frame. We need to get a treaty that is acceptable to the UK and recognises our red-line issues; in other words, one that does not encroach on the UK's veto powers on central issues and does not take over our foreign policy or our policy on defence, taxation, immigration and so on. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon referred to many of those matters during his speech.
	If we can secure a treaty that we agree with, it must then be formally written up and signed, which could take months. As with the treaty of Nice, a Bill has to be published and introduced, and parliamentary time has to be set aside for scrutinising it in both Houses. Then, and only then, can we consider having a referendum. In other words, the timetable leading up to a referendum will be dictated by the process of parliamentary scrutiny—and we would have to ensure that the treaty received the closest possible scrutiny—and could not be arbitrarily set at six months.
	Can you imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what would happen if we were trying to stick to a timetable but there was a delay in the signing ceremony? There would then be a delay in bringing the Bill to the House, and midway through our debate or perhaps even before it had started we would have to have a referendum simply because we were adhering to a timetable that had been plucked out of the sky and included in this flawed Bill. My approach, then, is to think in terms not of weeks or months but of the process of parliamentary scrutiny.

Mark Lazarowicz: Is there not another possibility that we should consider? What if, as a result of negotiations, the Conservatives did a U-turn and were no longer against a constitutional treaty? If there were unanimity among the major political forces in the country, there might not be a case for a referendum at that time. There might be a case for a referendum at some future date, but it would be premature to assume that the political position in the House would be the same a few months later.

David Cairns: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I slightly disagree with him because I am wedded to the notion of a referendum. I believe that that is the right policy, and I can foresee no circumstances in which we would not have a referendum, unless the constitutional treaty had already been killed off by a series of "no" votes elsewhere and the whole process had ground to a halt. Even in those circumstances, however, we might still go ahead with a referendum. Although I hear what my hon. Friend says, and we should not prejudge what will happen in the months ahead, I am firmly convinced that the policy of committing the matter to a referendum is right, and I look forward to that happening.

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend has highlighted the issue of the six months, which start from the date of adoption, although we do not know what that means. Of course, we do not know when the Bill itself will come into force, because yet another of its flaws is the fact that it contains no commencement provisions. I should have thought that one way round that issue would be to insert a commencement clause at the end. Will my hon. Friend give us his views on that?

David Cairns: My hon. Friend never ceases to amaze me. I studied the Bill in depth in preparation for today's debate, and I thought that I had picked out all its flaws, but I missed that very glaring one. I can therefore forgive the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon for making that mistake. Is not this an example of parliamentary scrutiny at its very best? Hon. Members can study a measure in detail and point out its flaws.
	The same will happen when we scrutinise any constitutional treaty laid before the House as a Command Paper. However, the Conservatives do not want us to do any of that; they want the treaty to go straight to a referendum before it has even received parliamentary scrutiny. The intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) brilliantly highlights why our policy of scrutinising a treaty in the House before a referendum is correct. The official policy of Opposition Front Benchers, which is to have the referendum before we even have the treaty, is flawed, and the policy of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, which nuances that by saying that we should have a referendum six months after the treaty's adoption, whatever that means, is equally flawed for the reasons that my hon. Friend just gave.

Andrew Dismore: Let us suppose that adoption means agreement in principle in June. Bearing in mind the parliamentary timetable, the six months for which the Bill provides could expire before the Bill comes into force.

David Cairns: That is yet another flaw in the Bill and another reason why even those of us who are wedded to the idea of a referendum cannot support it.
	My next problem with the Bill concerns the question that will be asked in the referendum.

Andrew Dismore: I am sorry to keep pursuing this point, but the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon looks bemused by my last intervention, and I should perhaps explain what I mean. Let us suppose that the Bill passed through to Committee today. It would then have to come back on Report, which I envisage would not happen much before June, and go to the other place. The prospect of its completing its parliamentary passage much before the spillover Session is pretty limited. As there is no commencement date, it would come into force three months later, by which time six months would already be up.

David Cairns: We would have to have a retrospective referendum of some kind. My hon. Friend is deep into the realms of metaphysics, but I think that I follow him. The Bill would come into force more than six months after the treaty had been adopted, so we could not have the referendum laid by down by the timetable in the Bill because six months would already have lapsed. I am glad that he clarified that, because I did not quite get it the first time round either.

Meg Munn: Neither did I.

David Cairns: Now that my hon. Friend has confessed, I do not feel uniquely stupid.

John Maples: Are the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) suggesting that the Government would delay the Bill to that extent? Otherwise, it could go through Parliament very quickly, as all hon. Members appear to be in favour of the principle.

David Cairns: I am in favour not of the principle of the Bill, but the principle of referendums. The hon. Gentleman has consistently conflated the two—

Andrew Dismore: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Cairns: My hon. Friend is clamouring for me to give way, but I will just finish this point. The hon. Gentleman has consistently conflated the two notions to suggest that if one loves good and hates evil one must support this Bill, but that does not follow. I support the idea of a referendum following the successful completion of negotiations and the securing of a treaty that respects the British red lines. Given the involvement in those negotiations of my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment, who is on the Front Bench, I have every confidence that the Government will secure such a treaty.
	Following that—we do not know whether it will be during the summer or later than that—we must subject the treaty to parliamentary scrutiny. That process will take a few months. I have no idea how long the passage of the Bill would last, but, given its many flaws, including his failure to specify a commencement date, I would expect it to have to spend quite a while in Committee. He has already said that he would table a couple of amendments, and we have not yet got through Second Reading. It is not a question of padding it out; it would take such a long time to rectify its flaws that the bizarre parallel time line outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon is plausible.

Meg Munn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Gentleman's great haste to rush to a referendum is about ensuring that the people of Britain do not have the opportunity properly to examine and understand the constitution, which would be more likely lead to a no vote than a proper discussion in this Parliament and in the country on the important issues that it contains?

David Cairns: My hon. Friend is being uncharacteristically unkind to the hon. Gentleman. I think that he genuinely has concerns about the constitutional treaty—as do I, as do the Government, and as does my hon. Friend, I am sure—but the arbitrary nature of the timetable that he sets out and the difficulties that I envisage, which have been complicated further by the forensic insight of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, mean that the Bill cannot be allowed to continue.
	I want to speak about the issues that we must tackle before the constitution is put to a referendum. Parliament must be at the heart of dealing with those matters. One cannot simply pluck an arbitrary period, for example six months, out of thin air, include it in the Bill and tell people, "If you oppose the Bill, you oppose a referendum and you don't want the people to have their say. If you oppose the Bill, you want a European superstate, straight bananas, people driving on the right-hand side of the road" and all the usual nonsense. I support a referendum but I oppose the Bill.

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend is generous in giving way. Perhaps I can help him a little with the previous intervention by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples). I assume that he did not consult the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) before he made it. If he had done so and was a more regular attender on Fridays, he would know that a private Member's Bill has a timetable and a specific date is set for it. That means that he should take his turn in the queue with everybody else. If he was genuinely worried about enacting his Bill in time, he would have set a commencement date—either on Royal Assent or within a month of Royal Assent—that would have enabled his timetable, such as it is, to be fulfilled. That shows how badly drafted the Bill is.

David Cairns: My hon. Friend amplifies the point that he made earlier with great clarity. There was a vote on the young cyclists helmets Bill—it was called something like that—

Meg Munn: Protective Headgear for Young Cyclists Bill.

David Cairns: Yes, that was the title. It has now been shunted to 18 June, when my ten-minute Bill is scheduled for Second Reading. As I understand it, the Protective Headgear for Young Cyclists Bill will take precedence because it is a ballot measure. My Bill is currently scheduled to be considered first on 18 June. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle is disappointed, and I was keen to support his Bill. It will now be considered before my Bill on 18 June. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon is therefore right to say that there is a set timetable that is not arbitrary.
	The Government are not trying to pad matters out until the Bill falls off the end of the cliff. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon need only look through the Order Paper, which sets out all the Fridays when such matters will be debated. I am not trying to ensure that the Bill does not succeed through some sort of procedural mechanism. I should be happy to vote against it, not because I oppose a referendum—I am not sure whether I have made it clear that I support a referendum—but because I oppose the Bill.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman says that he wants an opportunity to vote against the Bill, but he has been speaking for half an hour. Does he realise that if the Minister is to have time to respond to the pertinent questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) asked, he should sit down soon? Or is his motive to talk out the Bill?

David Cairns: It will take me a few moments to deal with that question. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon said earlier, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon took an hour and 10 minutes, not at the beginning of the day but halfway through the morning, to make his case. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, on one of his periodic visits to the Chamber, which seem to last approximately 10 minutes before he leaves again, leapt to his feet and accused my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon of committing an outrage. He asked how my hon. Friend dared criticise the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon for speaking for an hour and 10 minutes and whether he realised that the material was important and salient. I pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman had not been present for most of the speech. None the less, I agreed that it was a good speech and an hour and 10 minutes well spent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now start to talk about the Bill.

David Cairns: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have been striving to do so. I was about to speak about the Bill when I was interrupted from the Opposition Front Bench. Let us revert to the measure.

Andrew Dismore: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Cairns: I shall not on this occasion. If my hon. Friend lets me make a little progress, I shall happily give way later. I want to continue my analysis of the measure because, as I have already said, I would be the first speaker to conduct such an analysis.
	Let us consider the second flaw in the series of flaws that means that the Bill cannot be supported—the referendum question. When the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon referred to the 34 referendums that have already taken place, I asked him how many had the question decided by an Act of Parliament. I genuinely did not know the answer. I was not a Member of Parliament when the Bill that dealt with the Greater London authority was considered and I do not know whether the referendum question was included in the measure. I am happy to give way to any hon. Member who can tell me whether it is custom and practice to specify the question in the Bill.
	Clause 3(6) states:
	"The Electoral Commission shall publish a report setting out when and how the referendum shall be conducted",
	but that presumably does not include the wording of the question, because that is on the face of the Bill. That being the case, the Electoral Commission would have no say in that matter and would simply have to implement the measure.

Mark Lazarowicz: We are now coming to the crux of the Bill, namely, the wording of the question. My hon. Friend makes a relevant point about the Electoral Commission. Does he accept that the way in which a question is phrased can often determine the type of response that it gets? The question in the Bill asks:
	"Should the United Kingdom be bound by the Treaty establishing a Constitution for the European Union?"
	Does not that give a hint, at least, of the Conservatives' view that the treaty in some way restricts the sovereign rights of the UK? Is not the question itself designed to get a "no" answer?

David Cairns: I fear that it is. My hon. Friend's hackles were raised in the same way as mine were when I first read the question. I think that he might have been taking some refreshment after his magnificent speech in the earlier debate when I made precisely that point to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. I scored a bull's eye when I did so, because as soon as I had made the point, the hon. Gentleman said, "Fair enough; let's amend it in Committee." It was hardly the most robust defence of his own Bill to say, "Well, okay, if you think it's a bit biased we'll discuss it in Committee."
	I want to explore the general principle of whether we should put the wording of a referendum question into primary legislation. If someone can convince me that that is where it belongs, and that that is what we have done for the last 36 referendums, my fears would be calmed. Perhaps the Minister can help me here; he used to be in the Home Office. No one has yet explained to me why this wording needs to be in the Bill.

Andrew Dismore: Did not the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon give the game away when he said that this was exactly the same Bill as the one that was promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)? Is he not simply using the Bill as a vehicle to expound his anti-European views, rather than seriously intending to legislate? If he had had serious intentions, he would have made sure that his Bill was in order.

David Cairns: I agree with my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon is a parliamentarian of long standing. Indeed, he was the author of the Maples memorandum—if I am allowed to call it that—which Labour Members thoroughly enjoyed reading. I think that at one stage I knew every word of it and was able to campaign on it during the 1997 election. He had a brilliant forensic mind when he was setting out the flaws of the then Conservative Government. Unfortunately, it seems to have deserted him when he was drafting this Bill.
	If the hon. Gentleman has lifted a previous, flawed Bill without studying it in any great depth and put his own name to it, that would be a tiny bit irresponsible. Hon. Members tell me that that has been done in the past, but I cannot imagine that it is a common occurrence. I certainly would not want to put my name on a Bill as flawed as this one. I know that this might sound self-aggrandising, but my private Member's Bill went through all its parliamentary stages in both Houses last year without the need for any amendments.

Andrew Dismore: It seems to be a Tory party tactic to do this. The Retirement Income Reform Bill and the Food Labelling Bill have been brought back time and again without any of their flaws being corrected, and the result is the same every time: they get thrown out.

David Cairns: My hon. Friend is a more assiduous attender here on a Friday than I am, and I bow to his superior knowledge of these matters. It is a terrible shame if that is what is happening, and if this is part of a pattern. I thought that this was just a random occurrence, but it is very sad if my hon. Friend is right.
	There are two issues relating to the wording of the question. The first is the principle of whether a referendum question should be included in a Bill, irrespective of what it says. Hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that, as and when we have a referendum on the euro, the question will be framed by the Electoral Commission or some sort of independent body. I might be wrong; the Government might be intending to frame the question themselves—I am not entirely sure. However, if we were to give the Electoral Commission a significant role in the conduct of this referendum, excluding it as a point of principle from having anything to do with the framing of the question—after all, what is a referendum if it is not a question?—seems to be the major flaw in the Bill. I might have been more inclined to support it, the other flaws notwithstanding, had it said, "The question to be asked in the referendum shall be decided by the Electoral Commission and ratified by Parliament." However, it says:
	"The question to be asked in a referendum held in pursuance of section 1 is"—
	and it goes on to outline a question.
	I want to talk about the question—the words themselves—in a moment, but we must not pass on to that discussion without discussing the principle of fettering the Electoral Commission in its rightly ordained role. This Parliament gave the commission powers so that there would be no hint of party political bias in any such sensitive matter to do with elections or referendums. It would have had a lot to say about how the 1975 referendum was conducted—it was clearly one-sided in terms of the money spent and the publicity given to the "Yes" campaign. [Interruption.] I am far too young to remember it; I have read about it in the history books.
	The commission exists to ensure that no hint of bias or one-sidedness can creep into any part of the electoral process, including a referendum. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon recognises that, because he would give the Electoral Commission a key role in publishing
	"a report setting out when and how the referendum shall be conducted".
	However, the commission may decide when the referendum is to be conducted provided that it is six months after the date of the adoption, whatever that is, of the constitutional treaty. The commission would be told, "You can oversee the referendum, but you can't decide what the question is because we have already decided it. You can't decide on the timing of the thing because we have already decided it." The Bill also refers to the referendum being held on a public holiday, so the commission would also be told, "You can decide when it is, provided that it is on a public holiday six months after the adoption of a treaty." The commission would be outraged to be so fettered.

John Thurso: rose—

Mark Lazarowicz: rose—

David Cairns: I give way first to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso); I will come back to my hon. Friend.

John Thurso: The hon. Gentleman made a point about the referendum being held on a public holiday, which is referred to in clause 3(10). It states:
	"The day chosen for holding the referendum shall be a public holiday."
	Does he interpret that to mean that there shall be a holiday on the day of the referendum or that thereafter, for ever, it shall be a holiday to celebrate it?

David Cairns: The hon. Gentleman has succeeded in getting a laugh from a joke that I was hoping to make later, so I may not give way again during my speech. That is precisely the point that I wanted to make and I will return to it.

Andrew Dismore: Assuming that the Bill did not come into force until autumn, the first public holiday on which the referendum could be held might be Christmas day. Bearing it in mind that we have previously debated Christmas day trading, does my hon. Friend believe that it would be appropriate to hold the referendum on Christmas day, which is the implication of the Bill?

David Cairns: I have not studied the timetable in such depth, but clearly that would not be acceptable. My hon. Friend highlights the point that the Electoral Commission, which is supposed to decide such things, would be so fettered—so hemmed in—by this flawed Bill that its freedom for manoeuvre would be nugatory. He has pointed out yet another anomaly.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way once more; he is being very generous with his time.
	Surely another reason for it being wrong to exclude the Electoral Commission from the process in such a way is that, on the face of it, the Bill takes no account of any minor name changes to whatever treaty eventually emerges from the European negotiations. If the treaty were called the treaty establishing a constitutional framework for the EU, or if there were some other change to the wording that was not covered by the Bill, no referendum could be held. The Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), rather than enabling a referendum to be held, could prevent it.

David Cairns: I had not even considered that, but of course my hon. Friend is right. The flawed nature of the Bill involves not only how it would fetter the Electoral Commission, but how it would fetter us. We might have to wait to hold a referendum and perhaps this issue would become another important matter for the Government: our hands would be tied by such an Act of Parliament, so the name of the treaty that emerges would have to be a red-line issue. We will have to insist that it translates into English as a constitution for the European Union, and we cannot have it any other way because we have already been fettered by this legislation.

John Maples: I want to deal with the public holiday point. I thought that the Liberal Democrats had understood the provision properly, whereas the hon. Gentleman had not. I take it to mean, and it is intended to mean, that whatever day is chosen for the referendum shall also be designated a public holiday, not that the referendum must be held on what is an existing public holiday, because that would constrain the timetable seriously and we would have had to have it on Christmas day. My intention, and what the Bill says, is that whatever day is chosen—let us say that it is 31 October or 15 November—will as a consequence also be a public holiday.

Andrew Dismore: It does not say that.

David Cairns: As my hon. Friend anticipates from a sedentary position, it does not say that. It says:
	"The day chosen for holding the referendum shall be a public holiday."
	There are three interpretations of that: one is that it must be held on a public holiday that was going to be a public holiday anyway; another is that whatever the day is, it will be made a public holiday; and the third is that it will become a public holiday for ever, heading off into the future. The Bill is ridden with flaws—not just the ones that I have noticed, but the ones that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith has drawn to my attention, and the nuance in the flaw that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross has drawn to our attention. It is almost embarrassing to point it out to the hon. Gentleman, but it must be done.

Andrew Dismore: If the promoter of the Bill is correct, although he is probably making it up on the hoof, there are two possible interpretations. One is a significant impact on the British economy from losing a working day, and the second, if it turns out to be a public holiday for ever more, is a significant bribe to the electorate, which he could claim as a result of his Bill to try to persuade people to vote the way that he wants.

David Cairns: My hon. Friend highlights another point. Where is the regulatory impact assessment? If it is going to be a public holiday, we need to know the cost to the British economy. However, there is no such assessment. I understand, because I have introduced my own private Member's Bill, that the promoter is not obligated to provide a regulatory impact assessment, economic impact assessment or environmental impact assessment, but every time that someone asks for a new public holiday—whether Trafalgar day or some other day—the CBI rushes forward with some figure of billions of pounds that it will cost the economy. I presume that there is a standard figure, whereby a day's public holiday costs X billion pounds—the hon. Gentleman does not have to do the calculation himself but just ring up one of his mates at the CBI who could tell him. I would have expected to know such a figure. I will not vote for any legislation today that makes a commitment to have a public holiday when I have no idea what the cost to the British economy might be. It would have helped the hon. Gentleman's case if he had been able to provide an explanatory note or impact assessment saying what the cost would be.
	Of course, that only follows from the second of the three interpretations, which is that it should be a new public holiday. My first reading was that the referendum must take place on a day that is already a public holiday, which was my hon. Friend's understanding when he was looking to have it on Christmas day. Whether it is option one, two or three, it is simply not clear. The hon. Gentleman said that it was perfectly clear and then used a completely different formula and set of words, which, to his credit, were crystal clear, but they were not what is in the Bill.
	The hon. Gentleman said that we should bring forward an amendment in Committee. I hope that somebody, somewhere, is making a tally of all the amendments that must be tabled in Committee—my hon. Friend on the Front Bench might be doing that. It is not treating the House with contempt, but it is stretching the patience of the House to introduce legislation that is so flawed that, before we have even reached Committee, it requires a string of amendments. Under these circumstances, all that we can say is that the Bill has become nothing more than a long string of amendments held together with a few standard clauses, which is simply not acceptable and simply should not be given a Second Reading.

Andrew Dismore: Did not the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) give the game away when he made a passing reference to the Electoral Commission, saying that it could be involved further down the line? If he was serious about legislating, surely he should have consulted the commission before drafting the Bill to make sure that it did not contain so many flaws.

David Cairns: Absolutely.
	We have discussed the flaws relating to the issue of adoption and the insertion of words that fetter the Electoral Commission, which was probably not even consulted. The next major flaw lies in the wording of the referendum question. I suspect that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon—or the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, if he drafted the Bill—tried hard to think of wording that was studiously neutral. Speaking as one who would be more inclined to vote yes than no, I do not consider this wording to be studiously neutral. My hackles are raised by the word "bound". Voters are to be asked:
	"Should the United Kingdom be bound by the Treaty establishing a Constitution for the European Union?"
	My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) also felt that the question was not entirely even-handed and free from bias.
	Those of us who think that the British people should be given the final say cannot support the Bill. We did not observe the process that created that question. How did it come about? Who was consulted? What are the precedents? Is the question modelled on referendum questions that have been asked in Britain, or across Europe? There may be perfectly good answers to all those queries, but I do not know what they are, and in a speech lasting an hour and 10 minutes the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon left us none the wiser. Unless we gain some understanding of where the question has sprung from, I shall certainly not be minded to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Andrew Dismore: One body that was clearly not consulted is the Plain English Campaign. If subjunctives are built into a question, it becomes extremely complicated. Why not simply ask, "Do you agree or not?"?

David Cairns: I understand that a best-selling book at Christmas was about grammar. It was called "Eats, Shoots and Leaves", and concerned the apostrophe. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon might have done well to study that book before framing the question, because I think that it contains grammatical errors. I am not as concerned about grammar as my hon. Friend, who is far more learned in these matters, but I do not like the notion of being "bound" by the treaty.
	The hon. Gentleman could argue that that is precisely what the treaty does—that it does what it says on the tin—and in one sense he would be right. We should, however, bear in mind the connotations of "bound". Someone who is bound is tied up and constrained. His freedom of movement and freedom to act independently are severely limited. The hon. Gentleman may say that that is exactly what he meant. Of course it is what he meant, for it is what he believes, although it is not what I believe. His belief, either consciously or subconsciously, affected the drafting of the question. He, or perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, has allowed his better judgment to be clouded.
	There are two problems with the question. First, should any question be included in the Bill? I am open to persuasion, but I think that the answer is probably no. Secondly, is this question acceptable? In my view it is biased, and designed to elicit a "No" vote. Certainly it has negative connotations. Even if I were minded to support the principle of including a question in the Bill, I would not support this question.

Andrew Dismore: There is one good reason for not including the question. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) argued that the wording could be amended in Committee, and indeed on Report. We might find ourselves dealing with a dozen amendments with a dozen different wordings, ranging from what Conservative Members might prefer—"Do you want Britain out of Europe?"—to something more neutral, and from that to a question biased in favour of a "Yes" vote. We could debate all that for ever.

David Cairns: That is true, and the Bill will follow the usual route of a private Member's Bill. Debates will be timetabled—which does not mean that they can go on for ever, but they will have to take place on certain days.
	I want to talk about some of the other flaws before discussing where I think the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon was wrong in his comparisons with the Americans. Clause 3(6) says:
	"The Electoral Commission shall publish a report setting out when and how the referendum shall be conducted"—
	but not the question, because that has already been decided, and actually not when it will be conducted, because it has to take place within six months of the adoption of the treaty and on a public holiday, or perhaps not. The clause says that the report should include
	"what information is to be provided to those entitled to vote."
	This is a very interesting point.

Meg Munn: I want to clarify one issue before my hon. Friend goes into further detail. One thing that concerns me is that the Bill says that the Electoral Commission "shall publish a report". It does not say when or how soon, so we have a time scale within which the referendum has to take place but we do not have a time scale that sets out at what point before the referendum the Electoral Commission report should be published. There may be provisions that I am not aware of, but it seems that, if we want an informed debate about the referendum, there must be sufficient time for that information to be provided. I am sorry that I seem to be boring the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), but there has to be time for that information to be duly provided. If that is not sufficient, how can Parliament be satisfied that the population of Britain will have a real chance to discuss these very important issues?

David Cairns: My hon. Friend is correct. We have three parallel timetables, three parallel universes. The first is the timetable for the agreement of the actual treaty. It may be agreed this summer. It may not be. It may be months before the thing is agreed. Let us say that it is agreed this summer. We have summer holidays. It is a very long document. It may be a long while before it is signed. We do not know what adoption means, so we do not know when that particular timetable even starts. However, let us say that it starts in the summer. That is one hare that is off and running. The second hare that is off and running is the business of six months. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and I will not repeat the arguments. We have gone over that matter in some depth because of its importance.
	The second timetable is off and running. Because the Bill is coming through the private Members' route, it is constrained. The dates are all set out and we know that its passage could last longer than that timetable. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) has highlighted brilliantly the timetable within the timetable. We are working within a six months total. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said that six months is fair and gives us plenty of time to study and discuss all these things, but there is no timetable for when the Electoral Commission should produce that material. Within that overall six months, the commission has to do a job of work, decide what materials people need, what the format will be. Presumably, it works within its own statutes and consultation procedures. Then the report has to come back to the House. When it does so, it is laid by the Secretary of State in the form of regulations.
	That brings me to a favourite bête noire of the Opposition. They always grudgingly say, "Why are we agreeing this before we see draft regulations?" We cannot see draft regulations in respect of the provision—we cannot see any regulations—until the Electoral Commission has done its work. It writes a report. It gives it to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State drafts regulations and the regulations are considered not on the Floor of the House, where those important matters should be considered, but in Committee. However, we have absolutely no idea what they will be. We have subcontracted that to the Electoral Commission, fettering it all the way. We are being asked to give the green light to a process that deprives us of the chance to scrutinise those matters further on the Floor of the House. There is a structural flaw. Whenever the Government introduce a Bill and it is not specified when regulations will be laid and there is no concept of what will be in the regulations—they may not exist even in draft form—Opposition Members line up to condemn the Government for asking people to vote regulation-making powers through.

Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend may have skated over clause 3(1). Does he not find it peculiar, as I do, that the hon. Gentleman has taken the position that the electorate for the referendum should be the same as that for the European parliamentary elections? I understand that there are about 600,000 French nationals resident in the UK. If the Bill is about defending the British position in terms of the constitution, does my hon. Friend not find it peculiar that all other EU nationals will be able to vote when they may have their own national interests in the debate?

David Cairns: I had considered that point, and I would have come to it if I had had the time.
	My hon. Friend is right. The provision is peculiar. Unlike the arrangements pertaining in elections to the House, EU citizens living in the UK are entitled to vote in European elections and they would be able to vote on the binding issue of whether Britain accepted or rejected the constitution. I do not know—the question has not been answered—whether other countries would also allow someone who is resident here and on the electoral register to vote in that country. For example, someone from Ireland might end up having two votes. They could be registered in Ireland to vote in domestic Irish elections. They would therefore have a vote in the Irish referendum, but they could be registered here for European elections because they lived here and paid taxes. They could therefore vote in two referendums and, although that might be a good thing, it is a bit odd. For the life of me, I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman has specified this electorate who are different from the electorate for UK national elections.

Andrew Dismore: The position gets even worse. I think I am right in saying that a citizen of the EU can vote in European parliamentary elections in one country or the other, but not in both. However, if the referendums are on different days, a wealthy business man, who may have houses in six or seven different European countries or dual nationality, could hop around and vote in a series of referendums.

David Cairns: My hon. Friend extrapolates from my basic point.
	Broadly speaking, I am pro-Europe and believe that it would be in Britain's interests to secure a constitutional treaty that respected our red line issues. That would be good for Europe and make a Europe of 25 work better than the Europe of seven or eight when many of the original treaties were drafted. I do not want to be a little Britisher on this issue, but the people who are eligible to vote in UK parliamentary elections should vote in the referendum. I am concerned about the possibility of people having serial votes around Europe and, although this may be tending towards Euroscepticism, I am concerned about hundreds of thousands of people—I am trying not to use the word "foreigners"—

Andrew Dismore: EU nationals.

David Cairns: I am concerned about the prospect of EU nationals who are not entitled to vote in UK parliamentary elections having a vote in the referendum.
	The timetable that the hon. Gentleman sets out is dictated by his six months and not by the scrutiny process of Parliament. Like me, my hon. Friend believes that the proper process is to secure the treaty and have it debated on the Floor of the House of Commons by elected Members of Parliament and by Lords in another place. That is when we should go to a referendum. We should not subvert that process, but the hon. Gentleman adds insult to injury by proposing that people who are not entitled to vote in UK domestic elections should be able to vote in the referendum. That is puzzling, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to address that issue.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman has now been speaking for more than an hour. It is St. George's day and millions of English people want to hear the response of the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) and to the many others throughout the country who are concerned about the referendum and Government confusion on the issue. Is the hon. Gentleman intent on preventing that response from taking place?

David Cairns: I am intent on exposing the flaws in the Bill, and I am barely halfway through the process. I am sorry that I will not be allowed to do a thorough job in exposing the flaws, which is my only motivation—I do not want to prevent anyone from doing anything else.

Andrew Dismore: Again, I can only assume that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has not contacted the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). Our job in this Chamber is to scrutinise and legislate; it is not to provide vehicles for people to argue about general policy. The debate concerns this particular Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) has done the House a service by exposing the flaws in it, and I hope to continues to do so.

David Cairns: I fully intend to do so. I am mildly hurt by the implication that the Minister has more weighty things to say about the Bill than me. I am personally grateful to him, because without his championing a previous piece of legislation, I would not even be here. As an elected Member of Parliament, my views on the Bill are as valid as anyone else's. This is a private Member's Bill, not Government legislation, and I am a Back Bencher doing my job, which I was elected to do, by making a speech exposing its flaws. There is no time limit on my speech, and I regret that I have so few minutes left, because I want to address other major flaws.
	Before moving on, I want to stick to the issue of the Electoral Commission report. Clause 3 states:
	"The Electoral Commission shall publish a report setting out when and how the referendum shall be conducted"—
	apart from the question and the date, which will already have been decided—
	"including what information is to be provided to those entitled to vote . . . The Secretary of State shall give effect to the provisions contained in a report of the Electoral Commission under subsection (6) by means of regulations."
	The Bill does not allow the Secretary of State to reject any of the proposals—it only allows him to give effect to them—and he is bound by the report of the Electoral Commission.
	Clause 4 states:
	"There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament"—
	taxpayers' money—
	"any expenditure of the Secretary of State in consequence of this Act".
	Let us think the Bill through. The Electoral Commission produces a report, with no timetable on when it should be produced—presumably it has its own statutory guidelines on how it consults and reports. Next, we make a report, which includes the information provided to those entitled to vote. Finally, we give that report to the Secretary of State, who enables the referendum to happen by regulation, and the taxpayer pays for it. The Bill asks us to provide the Electoral Commission with a blank cheque.
	If the Electoral Commission were to decide that every person in the country should have a 60-minute video on Europe, for and against, that the video should be shot across the European Union, that Kevin Spacey should introduce it, that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon should be in it, that it should feature the beauties of the European city of culture, which will be Liverpool in a few years' time, and that it should be narrated by Sir Sean Connery, the Secretary of State would have no say in the matter and must produce it. Who would pay for it? The taxpayer. The Bill does not state how much the referendum should cost. We are being asked to produce a blank cheque, which is irresponsible.
	The Bill has two major financial implications: one is the cost of the new bank holiday—presumably a bespoke figure for that exists in the annals of the Department of Trade and Industry, but nobody has ventured it today—the other is the blank cheque to the Electoral Commission to come up with any scheme. The Electoral Commission might decide to stage an opera about European integration and tour the country with it, and British taxpayers would have to pay. My hon. Friends laugh because they think that I overstate the case, but this deeply flawed Bill does not fetter the Electoral Commission.

Andrew Dismore: I regret to say that my hon. Friend is overstating the case, because the regulations are subject to approval by each House of Parliament. Let us suppose that the Electoral Commission produced a silly report, which the Secretary of State would be bound to bring to Parliament. We would then have an affirmative debate in both Houses on whether it should be ratified, and Parliament would reject it, in which case we would be back to square one. If Parliament rejects the regulations, there is a lacuna in the Bill.

David Cairns: My hon. Friend is right to interrupt my flight of fantasy and anchor me back to the real world, but he has also highlighted yet another flaw in the Bill. It does not say that the Electoral Commission shall produce a leaflet or present its report in some other limited form, nor that the Secretary of State shall reflect upon the commission's recommendations and bring forward the measures that he deems necessary for their implementation. The Bill says simply that the Electoral Commission shall produce a report, the Secretary of State shall bring that to Parliament, where it shall be implemented—or not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon points out—by means of regulation.
	Consider the impact on public opinion if the Bill were to receive Royal Assent after hundreds of MPs came in and voted for it because it reflects the will of Parliament—

Andrew Dismore: There are not many Tories here.

David Cairns: To be frank, there are not many on our Benches either. Suppose, in all seriousness, that we sent the Electoral Commission to do the job of work. The Secretary of State—a profoundly serious person— would consider it, time would be spent preparing a report, which would then go to a statutory instrument Committee, where a handful of Members would decide its fate and the whole thing would grind to a shuddering halt. What would be the response not only of the rest of Parliament, which voted to set the whole train in motion, but of the people, who would see their long-promised referendum snatched away from them in a statutory instrument Committee sitting in Committee Room 13 on a wet Tuesday afternoon? Is that remotely the right way to approach the subject? Absolutely not. The Government's way is the right one—to argue for the treaty, secure the treaty, debate it on the Floor of the House, as such treaties are, and then move the debate out to the country.

Mike O'Brien: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend's argument, but in view of the limited time, he needs to cut to the chase. I really want to hear his view on the fact that the Bill makes no reference to ensuring that Parliament can debate the substance of any constitutional treaty before it is put to the country. The Opposition want any debate to be based on the myths that they propagate, rather than on proper parliamentary scrutiny. Will my hon. Friend say where the Bill provides for full parliamentary scrutiny to enable the public to hold a proper discussion on the issues?

David Cairns: My hon. Friend is entirely right. That that is not the process is not an accident, an oversight, a mistake or a flaw in the Bill; it is deliberate. A six-month timetable is set out, although we are not sure when it starts, and that is the process. It does not include the people's representatives debating the matter here, on the Floor of the House where everyone has a chance to have their say, it then going to the other place, and the debate then being taken out into the country. Parliament is deliberately set aside.

Christopher Chope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Cairns: Not now—I have been generous.
	My point is that it is possible to be staunchly in favour of a referendum—I am and so are all my hon. Friends: we want the people to be part of the process of scrutinising the treaty—but to believe that the Bill is utterly flawed and a complete dog's breakfast. The speech of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon was entirely about the substance of the constitutional treaty. I suspect that he is aware—whether consciously or subconsciously—that the vehicle that he proposes to bring about a referendum is deeply flawed, which is why he has not marshalled the necessary number of troops to get it past a Division.

Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friend is correctly suggesting that the Conservatives are not intent on providing for a proper discussion, followed by a proper referendum. This country's only referendum in relation to Europe was provided by the Labour Government in 1975. The Labour party is now offering people the opportunity to take a view on a constitutional treaty. It was the Conservative party that, in the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty, denied the people that opportunity. Labour trusts the people; the Conservatives never have, even though they have had the opportunity to do so.

David Cairns: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. That is absolutely the case. I—
	It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
	Debate to be resumed on Friday 18 June.

Remaining Private Members' Bills
	 — 
	OLDER PEOPLE'S COMMISSIONERS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 15 October.

John Maples: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you help me find out what methods there are to draw the attention of the public to the fact that the Prime Minister says he is in favour of a referendum, but sends his Members of Parliament to talk my Bill out, abusing the rules of the House to do so and thereby belying the honesty of his intention to hold a referendum?

David Cairns: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think I can deal with the point of order once and for all. That is a matter rather more of debate than for the Chair. We should now move on.

COMMUNITY HOSPITALS (OXFORDSHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

Evan Harris: I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the important topic of community hospitals in south Oxfordshire, and I am grateful to the House for giving me the opportunity as a relatively late substitution for the original business set out on the Order Paper before the recess. I am particularly pleased to see that the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), will respond to the debate. It makes a change for us to be discussing community hospitals on this occasion, rather than aspects, gruesome or otherwise, of human organs, which we have been dealing with in the Committee considering the Human Tissue Bill.
	I draw the attention of the House to proposals from the South East Oxfordshire and South West Oxfordshire primary care trusts in a pre-consultation to reduce beds and close community hospitals in the south of Oxfordshire. The proposal could affect beds in six hospitals—Witney in the west, Henley in the east, Didcot, Wantage and Wallingford hospitals towards the south and, in my constituency, Abingdon community hospital in the middle of the south of Oxfordshire.
	There is strong support for the stance that I have taken in a cross-party campaign in which people from all parties have been represented, as well as people with no strong political views. I express my gratitude for the support that the campaign has had from the hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Johnson), for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and for Wantage (Mr. Jackson). The hon. Member for Wantage has three hospitals that could be closed under the proposals and is therefore particularly badly affected.
	In the debate, I shall highlight significant flaws in the proposals set out in the pre-consultation document and raise concerns with the Minister about the fact that such a substantial reduction in community hospital beds, with or without an increase in domiciliary care, would not benefit the Oxfordshire health economy as a whole. We must bear it in mind that the Oxfordshire health economy is in deep trouble financially and in terms of meeting the activity targets that the Government set. Many of those targets are inappropriate and distort clinical priorities, but if the Government use them to measure how well the health economy is doing, they will see that they are being met—where they are being met—only at the expense of significant overspends and enormous pressures in the system. Areas not covered by targets and the need to report are left to wither and be starved of resources.
	The health economy is facing significant challenges from the cost of implementing the GP contract and, in the acute trusts, the cost of implementing and backdating the consultant contract, because it appears that the costings for that were based on a smaller number of sessions than the average in a large teaching hospital such as the Oxford Radcliffe, where it should have been predicted that the management would find that consultant staff were working harder than management thought their contracts required. In addition, there are significant pressures to meet national service framework targets, which are some of the more rational targets, and the requirements to fund National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance for new drugs.
	The Government say that there is significant growth in the budget this year— and there is—and in future years. That is something that I voted for, and which the Liberal Democrats recommended before the election rather than simply coming up with after the election. But despite that, I have been told by all sides of the Oxfordshire health economy that the cost pressures that they face, even restricting themselves to what they call the "must-dos"—the things that they have to do, not things that they want to do—come to more than the growth in the budget. That is why many of us suspect that the move to reduce the number of community hospital beds, and as a consequence of that to close hospitals, is financially driven.
	One of the problems with the consultation process has been that it is opaque on whether there is a financial motivation behind it. If there is a financial motivation, so be it, because the priorities of the health economy must be juggled, and it may be felt that it is not a false economy to reduce community hospital beds and to seek to reinvest that money in some of the must-do areas that I have described. But at the public meetings there has been a big inconsistency about whether it is financially driven or whether the idea is to close community hospitals and cut community hospital beds for the benefit of patients. That is hard to understand, but it is defended on the basis that those resources can be switched to providing increased domiciliary care, and I shall come on to the problem with that in a moment.
	If we look at the numbers that the primary care trusts in the south-east and south-west use in their south locality plan, there are real problems with even the basic assumptions. First, it is hard to find out what sort of numbers there are overall to start with, because two different figures are given in the document. In the table on page 6, 192 beds are defined as open, and then there is a proposal to reduce that overall to a total of 153, but on page 14 in the table of options at the back, which has a range of 11 options detailing various hospital closures, it suggests that there are 228 beds, of which 24 are closed. That gives a different basic start figure. Whether one includes or excludes the 15 separate beds at Townlands hospital in Henley, they still do not round down. It is worrying to people reading the document that the basis of the research behind it seems so poor that it is not clear that the people proposing this know how many beds there are in total.
	Then there are other concerns about the calculations that have been made on the need for beds. First, the beds required to cater for population growth are deemed to be an additional five on the basis of a population growth between 2001 and 2005 of 1.26 per cent. Very graciously, the authors of the document round that up to 3 per cent. because of an increase in elderly patients in particular, but we must ask why, in 2004, for a proposal that might happen in 2005, we are basing our bed numbers on a projection up to 2005. If this is really a long-term proposal, surely it is rational to go beyond 2005, even if one accepts the figures—many people recognise that there is, and will be much more significant population growth than that, including among the elderly.
	There is a proposal that beds be reduced by five through a transfer of respite care—that is, people who currently receive free NHS care on a respite basis being forced into social services care where they will be means-tested. It says that there will be a separate consultation, and when I saw that I thought, "Quite right, so there should be." Then we find that, despite those words, there is to be no separate consultation. I question whether it is a lawful act to reprovide that service through social services without proper consultation of those involved, when one is proposing permanently to withdraw their care.
	An analysis has been done through the Jonah project, which suggests that the length of stay for patients in community hospitals can be reduced through better discharge planning—I certainly accept that—and that beds can be reduced by 25. One would like to see the detail behind that, but it was not available online. Nevertheless, if one accepts that throughput can be increased in such a way—I do not necessarily deny that that is the case—one must recognise that the same will apply in the acute sector. Increased throughput in the acute sector will mean increased demands on the community hospital sector and other forms of intermediate care. The idea that the health economy should implement faster throughput only in the community hospitals when, if anything, there are greater efficiency gains to be made in the acute sector is wrong, but there is no area in which that is factored in.
	There is a question about the findings of the balance of care project, which looked at where people should be at any given time. In its snapshot calculations, it recognised that 21 more beds would be needed, because so many people in the acute trust and the Oxford Radcliffe hospital could be better cared for in the community hospitals and other settings. That is certainly true, but I imagine that, to anyone coming to the matter anew, the two obvious empirical factors in terms of the total number of beds needed would be the occupancy level of the existing beds, which would demonstrate whether there was spare capacity, and the waiting list for those beds.
	Those are two reasonable measures of whether current capacity is adequate, and they should be considered before deciding whether it can be slashed by 40 or 50 beds from a total of about 200, but, strangely, the document contains no data on occupancy levels, which prompts the question "Why?". I think that the reason is that such data would show that occupancy is almost 100 per cent. If occupancy were running at 70 per cent. or even 80 per cent., which is not far from the maximum optimal level in terms of ensuring that beds are available—beds are often wanted in surges from the Oxford Radcliffe hospital—one could understand the rationalisation. However, there is not 70 per cent. occupancy. One might understand rationalisation and the need for good use of resources in such circumstances, and I am not arguing in principle against any reprovision of services or cuts. However, a snapshot that I asked for, dated 9 March, shows that, of the total of about 213 beds in the six hospitals that we are talking about, out of the 185 or 190 beds in use—about 24 beds were closed at the time when the information was obtained—only six beds were available. One does not need to be an advanced-level mathematician to recognise that that is near maximum occupancy.
	I put it to the Minister that there should be no question of closing beds until it can be demonstrated that there is spare capacity, especially in respect of the waiting lists. The Oxford Radcliffe hospital is under huge pressure, partly because of delayed discharges. Asking the hospital for its figures shows that, despite the fining arrangements that the Government have introduced, which were controversial enough, there were still 140 delays in the week starting 12 February 2004, for example. The figure was 160 for a similar week in January, so I am not simply choosing a particularly high figure.
	If one looks at the reasons for delayed discharge—clearly, not all the patients are waiting to go into community hospitals—for the Oxford Radcliffe hospital, which is the main acute hospital in the area, one sees that by far the largest reason for delayed discharge is further non-acute NHS care. Some 62 out of the 141 delayed discharges for the week ending 12 February 2004 were for further non-acute NHS care, which will generally be provided in community hospitals. When we ask the PCTs about the matter, they do not deny that there is a waiting list, and it is clear that the waits are not mainly for community hospitals in the north of the county, where there have historically been fewer community hospital beds. There are still significant numbers from the south-west and south-east areas. Indeed, the smallest number is for the north-east. Arguably, the catchment areas for four of the six hospitals are within the South West Oxfordshire PCT, whose residents have significantly greater waits for community hospitals than for hospitals in the south-east. More figures are available, but I hope that the Minister gets the picture.
	The case has not been made for a reduction in bed numbers, and the onus should be on the PCT to demonstrate the need for such a reduction because of spare capacity before it starts to suggest which hospitals should close. I suspect that the table of 11 options for closing different hospitals was an attempt to change the valid question, "Should we reduce community hospital bed numbers?" to "Which hospitals will close?" and to set one hospital against another.
	I do not dispute the need to ensure that there is more domiciliary care, and I am sure that I share with the Minister the view that domiciliary care, with assistance, is more appropriate for some patients than residential care and that it is the best option for some patients who do not need to be in a hospital setting of any kind, with the risks that that entails. One can countenance a switch of provision when shown that there would be an alternative increase in domiciliary care provision. The people to whom I have spoken, who populate the committees that have considered issuing a response to this document, share that view—they do not say that we should never close any beds—but they are concerned that the health economy and social services have to demonstrate that staff are available for domiciliary care before they start closing hospitals, which is an irreversible step.
	Although it is difficult to recruit nurses, and beds in community hospitals close partly because of that difficulty—although I think that planning blight is also a factor to bear in mind—I am told that it is even more difficult to recruit domiciliary care workers. Their job is more difficult; they receive less support because they are moving around; and of course they are paid even less than nurses in community hospitals. It is incumbent on the health economy to show that it can afford and resource the other option before closing beds in community hospitals.
	A number of people from across the parties and of no particular political persuasion have taken a mature look at the proposals, and hospital groups have made responses to the pre-consultation document. I have met the South West Oxfordshire primary care trust, which covers my constituency, and I make no criticism, in general terms, of its leadership. They have been willing to meet me, and they have performed a pre-consultation exercise, which is more than the statutory requirement; I want to put that on the record. It is still not clear to me, however, and I am not convinced that it is clear to the PCT, what are the real reasons for making these proposals at this point, without having done the work that is required.
	I have raised the matter with the strategic health authority, asking it to take a view on whether it is appropriate to seek to reduce community hospital capacity when the Oxford John Radcliffe hospital is under enormous strain, as I think it will be for the foreseeable future. I suspect that the hospital is extremely concerned about the change, given the huge number of delayed discharges that occur due to a wait to get into a community hospital. When I worked at the John Radcliffe as a senior house officer in emergency medicine, my colleagues and I found community hospitals to be an extremely valuable source of step-down rehabilitation care, and I know that the staff still find that to be the case.
	I am now bringing the argument to a higher level, to this House and the Minister. I hope that she will recognise that this is not an antediluvian opposition to all change, but a serious worry that the change is not thought out, it is not yet justified and, financially and in terms of patient care, it will make matters worse.
	I pay tribute to the people working in community hospitals and those trying to balance the books in the health economy, but these proposals will not do, and I believe that my constituents share that view.

Rosie Winterton: I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on securing this debate on what is obviously a matter of great concern to his constituents. I join him in paying tribute to the staff in his area, including not only those on the front line but those working in the PCT, who are obviously committed to making improvements to the local NHS.
	The hon. Gentleman expressed a number of concerns about the situation in his area. As I am sure he is aware, it is our policy, within the framework set out in the NHS plan and the "Shifting the Balance of Power" initiative, to devolve funding decisions to the front line. Oxfordshire PCTs received an extra £41.7 million this year and will receive an extra £134 million over the next three years to 2005–06. With that extra funding, it is for PCTs, in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequality and modernising services. They are obviously best placed to do that because they have specialist knowledge of the local community.
	As part of the modernisation programme set out in the NHS plan, many NHS economies and organisations are considering, with local stakeholders, changes to the way in which they organise their services. In doing so, they need to take a whole- systems approach that takes account of the contributions of different hospitals and primary, intermediate and social care providers. They need to work in partnership and to have genuine integration and joint planning of services.
	To help the NHS to build those local solutions, in February 2003 the Department published guidance that set out the principles and approach that should be applied to all proposals for service change, as well as the various stages of the consultation process. The initial stage should commence with the local health economy engaging stakeholders—staff, patients and the public—and, ideally, the process should end with the local health economy moving on to implementation once a preferred option is agreed: of course, that is what Ministers would prefer. There may be instances where, for example, an overview and scrutiny committee of a local council refers decisions to the Secretary of State for Health, who can then call on an independent reconfiguration panel to investigate the situation and to offer advice.
	As regards intermediate care, our policy aim is to maximise choice, control and independence for individuals, whether they live at home, in supported housing or in a care home. We know that most older people wish to live in their own homes for as long as possible, but that requires a wide range of high-quality support services and, again, good partnership between service providers.
	I am aware that a great deal of excellent work is being carried out by PCTs and social services in Oxfordshire to improve intermediate care in the county by developing services for older people that are easy to access and are provided, where possible, in people's homes, whether it be their own home or a nursing home. In Oxfordshire, primary care trusts and social services operate a pooled budget of approximately £45 million. The aim is to ensure that resources are used in the best possible way to meet the needs of older people and people with physical disabilities.
	As I said, health services will wish to respond to the changing needs of local people. I understand that that is why PCTs in the south of Oxfordshire decided to review the provision of community hospital services and intermediate care. The informal consultation paper, "South Locality Plan—The way forward for community hospital and intermediate care services", proposed options for improving levels of care, providing support to other parts of the NHS and providing sustainable services within allocated resources.
	The south Oxfordshire primary care trusts took the view that the south of the county has traditionally offered a more bed-based service, given the number of community hospitals. There are established intermediate care support services teams in the PCTs but the service is not available to all areas. I understand that the PCTs' preferred option has been to develop equitable domiciliary care services in partnership with local authorities and in line with progress in north Oxfordshire. The services have jointly developed access to care and rehabilitation, which brings together NHS intermediate care support services and the rapid response, re-enablement and community rehabilitation services that social services provide. The idea was to offer rapid assessment of individuals followed by intensive home support.
	In May 2003, before the informal consultation, the Oxfordshire health care system commissioned "Balance of Care", a survey of the health needs of more than 1,000 patients. Several issues were highlighted in the report that followed, including work force medical cover, emergency care, out-of-hours services and delayed discharges, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
	I appreciate the concerns that the hon. Gentleman expressed about the validity of the survey and its subsequent contribution to the south locality plan. However, I understand that the aim of the informal consultation was to gather stakeholders' views. The hon. Gentleman may know that the strategic health authority currently recommends that PCTs do not proceed to formal consultation on existing options. The work is continuing with PCTs, in conjunction with the strategic health authority and local communities, including the local authority, to consider other care options for people in south Oxfordshire in the context of local community services.

Evan Harris: Will the Minister confirm that that means that the immediate threat to cut the number of community hospital beds and close hospitals is effectively withdrawn and that she is referring to an instruction or recommendation to the strategic health authority not simply not to consult on the matter but not to go down that path?

Rosie Winterton: Yes. The strategic health authority has recommended not to proceed with those options and to consider other options of care for people in the area. I understand that work is in progress to deal with some of the local issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.
	I am advised that the strategic health authority is leading on supporting trusts in implementing the European working time directive. Trusts are promoting the "improving working lives" initiative, which encourages flexible working and the provision of opportunities for training and development. Significant effort is also being made to recruit staff to the community hospitals with a series of joint recruitment open days in some hospitals.
	As I said earlier, it is our policy that PCTs, in partnership with other local NHS trusts and the strategic health authority, decide the priorities for the NHS locally. That is where specific local knowledge and expertise lie. It is not appropriate for Ministers to decide on the direction of travel and exactly how services should be reconfigured—we have made that clear. The NHS locally should do that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who introduced a debate that is so important to his constituents, will be reassured by the points that I have made, not only about the reconfiguration of services but the action that is being taken to deal with the genuine issues that he raised.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.